Instigator
K_Michael avatar
Points: 4

Lucius Malfoy Is a Better/Truer Upholder of Slytherin Values than Voldemort (As requested by RM)

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Movies
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
RationalMadman avatar
Points: 7
Description
Rules:
Rating contending positions as equal does not constitute a victory on either part.
BoP is shared. Prove that your position is Superior.
Only canonical actions and literature may be provided as evidence. (Includes Pottermore, the movies, and The Cursed Child if you wish.)
Round 1
Published:
First, we must identify Slytherin values.
The Sorting Hat uses words like "power-hungry," "cunning," and "ambition" to describe Slytherin House.
There are also phrases like "Those cunning folk use any means/ To achieve their ends," (The Sorting Hat again) and "We [Slytherins] will always choose to save our own necks." (Phineas Nigellus Black, Slytherin, former Headmaster of Hogwarts)
You can go to https://www.debateart.com/debates/777 for some more direct quotes.


Voldemort

This man has devoted decades to furthering his own power through deception, murder, etc. "use[s] any means to achieve [his] ends."
His plots, those that we know about, anyway, begin when he is a student at Hogwarts. As the Heir of Slytherin, he opens the Chamber of Secrets and kills a muggle-born girl, Myrtle Warren, posthumously regarded in ghost form as Moaning Myrtle. In this act he creates his first Horcrux, achieving a degree of immortality.

He goes on to make several more Horcruxes (it's not paranoid if they're actually out to get you), before becoming the Dark Lord Voldemort. His band of Death Eaters consists largely of rich and powerful pureblood wizards, such as Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange, despite the fact that he was himself a half-blood.
With this army, he intended to overthrow the Ministry of Magic by force and take over magical Britain. Many aurors and members of the Order of the Phoenix died trying to stop him.


He "died" trying to stop a prophecy from being fulfilled, but luckily he had his Horcruxes. (being prepared = cunning)

He terrorized Britain twice and succeeded in corrupting the government and more or less controlling Britain for a brief time in the seventh book.

Lucius Malfoy

A man of power and wealth. Quite a successful Slytherin, you might think. But most of his wealth is inherited, as he is Lord Malfoy, a name that goes back for generations. His ancestors, mostly Slytherins, have been accumulating wealth for centuries. 

His power is most likely well earned, employing bribes with his family fortune, a silver tongue and plausibly blackmail as well. He's on the board of Governors for Hogwarts, which puts him in a position of power relative to the school and our narrative of Harry's years at Hogwarts, but isn't all that significant in itself. It is also likely that this position was won by family money as well.



Published:
A rap I think both Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy could have sung regarding the other Death Eaters and Slytherins (especially since Voldemort blackmailed Draco into killing Dumbledore) to describe their agony of being Slytherins in a world where the other thought it means 'betray even your own kind' when really the House and unity of it relied on not using Slytherin values on the 'fam' or 'gang' but only to the enemies.

--

Foreword

Disclaimer: Con and Pro are not having this debate for monetary gain. This is about the works of J.K. Rowling and is with full respect to her ownership of the Harry Potter ‘world of fiction’ and enterprise.

Pro is representing the notion that Lucius Malfoy is truer to the Slytherin ethos and better at carrying them out in a resolute manner whilst Con accepts equal Burden of Proof (BoP) and represents “(I am Lord) Voldermort” (AKA Tom Marvolo Riddle, which was the anagram of his full name}.

--

The ‘true nature’ of anything is relative to the percentage of one’s nature of opposing things (semantics and logic framework)

Pro notices that Con asserts some things about Slytherins which firstly will be challenged, unless Pro agrees and finds Harry Potter Lore to agree, and secondly will be compared to the percentage of one’s representation of the other houses and their values.

Let’s make this very clear:

Pro asserts that it needn’t matter how prominent a warlock/wizard that Voldemort was in comparison to Malfoy Sr. (Jr. being Draco) as this debate regards the purity of Slytherin values within the individual, not the magnitude of output. Con refusing this would means Con is trying to assert that in spite of being less true to Slytherin values and acting in a way that worsens Voldemort’s loyalty to the Slytherin ethos, that due to magnitude of what he did then he is somehow ‘better’ or ‘truer’ anyway (this should blatantly prove itself wrong by the two things that Con is conceding when saying ‘in spite of’).

The ‘true nature’ of anything is as follows:

True (in this context)
  • Rightly or strictly so called; genuine.
  • properly so called
  • possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as
- 1,2

Nature
  • The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.
  • The innate or essential qualities or character of a...(in this case a member of Slytherin)
- 3

So, what about purity? Which of two things is more true to its nature than another?

Pro stands by the notion that the ‘severity of acts in the name of Slytherin’ do not make one a truer/better Slytherin. What Con has actually described thus far is very much like an ISIS terrorist saying they are a truer Muslim than the rest because of their severe acts in the name of Islam. Voldemort being more brutal or severe, terrorising Britain twice (this is irrelevant as Lucius Malfoy was significant to both, especially the second and I challenge Con to prove otherwise) is not proof that he was truer to the ethos and values of Slytherin, rather it is is evidence that he’d tarnish his Slytherin nature and make bold moves like a Gryffindor would, on a regular basis.

Purity doesn’t come from severity of acts, it comes from consistency and lack of impurity to the methods and ethos of one’s way of going about life. What we are doing here, is equivalent to assaying an ore-containing sample in chemistry.

Assay: An assay is a test of a substance to find out what chemicals it contains. It is usually carried out to find out how pure a substance is.
- 4

Pure:
  • not mixed with anything else.
  • A pure colour is not mixed with any other colour.
  • Involving or containing nothing else but; sheer (used for emphasis)
- 5,6


Voldemort was essentially a Gryffindor-Slytherin hybrid, Lucius Malfoy showed pure Slytherin attributes at every stage of the HP Lore

The first angle that Lucius Malfoy thwarts Voldemort at is the very primary thing people dislike about Malfoy Sr.; his cowardice.

From the up-front way that Voldemort went about originally taking on the baby Potter, to the consistent 1-against-1 way he keeps trying to handle Potter (with the only Slytherin-esque element being he has secret Horcruxes that end up being revealed at the end, leaving him with no secrets) Voldemort is consistently shown to have severe courage and ‘take me on’ mentality throughout the Harry Potter books and movies.

Gryffindor is said to have praised courage, determination and strength of heart above all other qualities. Indeed, he selected students for his house based upon their daring and bravery, according to the Sorting Hat. He also was the most in favour of allowing Muggle-borns into the school.
- 7
In the debate that Pro links you to (where ironically Pro is saying Slytherins are wrongly represented and then proceeds to represent them brutally even more severely negative than they already were) it is mentioned that Lucius Malfoy screwed up the plan to make the Basilisk enter Hogwarts and handle Potter. This is a total lie. Lucius Malfoy was the only reason the plan was even that successful in the first place. In the Chamber of Secrets, it is Voldemort (via the ghost of Tom Riddle) that has this incessant need for ‘look at me’ ‘this is happening’ ‘wow’! It is he who gets Ginny to make a grand spectacle of it all and it’s not Malfoy Sr.’s fault that these Ginny escapades and Moaning Myrtle seeing things she shouldn’t resulted in the plan being foiled. If anything, his son was so brilliant at making things go according to plan even in the face of the ‘other side’ (Harry, Hermione and Ron) using polyjuice potion to get inside information.

For this Round Pro won’t provide many sources here as ultimately the source is a copyrighted franchise of fiction. I’m not lying about it and want this to be a debate on concepts of the Lore, not the specifics of the Lore itself but there’s just two things that Pro wishes to tackle Con on:

  1. Slytherins are not power-hungry, they are patient and value power defensively.
  2. Slytherins are not without loyalty, when the loyalty does indeed serve self-interest of the ‘group’ (it’s a House after all, it’s de facto not about pure individualism at the sake of the team).
Salazar Slytherin wasn’t a standalone type. If anything that was Rowena Ravenclaw. Slytherins aren’t the most introverted House, they value ‘their own kind’ more so than the other three houses and will be extroverted and loyal within the ‘family’. This is exactly how Lucius Malfoy was and anything but what Voldemort was. Voldemort would take on anyone, at any time, who stood in his way. Lucius handled his own son being bullied and blackmailed into murdering Albus Dumbledore by getting Snape involved and having his wife make an unbreakable vow with Snape. Malfoy never handled things in any way other than cunning, well-planned, deceit-heavy manners that meant if you ever were up against him you never had a clue what he’d do next. Even when Harry frees Dobby from Malfoy Sr.’s control, it was not due to Malfoy being blatant in any manner, but rather due to Dobby being as cunning back at him.

Malfoy Sr. never once, not even slightly, strays from the Slytherin ethos. He even tells his son off for underperforming against the muggle-born Hermione. He doesn’t soothe Draco saying ‘that mudblood must have cheated’ or anything of the sort. When discussing the role they played in the Basilisk plan going wrong (which was minimal) what he says is ‘you lost to a mudblood’ in other terms.

Lucius Malfoy never lets the money or power get to his head and is the only (yes only) prominent Slytherin in the entire story to understand how to stay completely loyal to the ‘family’ of whatever kind (his family, his wife’s family and the death eaters) while juggling it all in a cunning ‘disloyal only when I need to be, but amazingly good at being it’ manner. He doesn’t betray irrationally, especially not when it’s against self-interest or the interest of those close to him. Voldemort bravely, irrationally and consistently acts in ways that endanger himself and refuses to trade in ego and ambition for the ‘family’ of whoever he goes along with in life.

The saying that Con is referring to about ‘any means to achieve their ends’ is the ending rhyme to something that says:

“Or maybe in Slytherin you’ll meet your real friends,
Those cunning folk uses any means to achieve their ends.
- 8

Lucius Malfoy understand this completely, he never snitches in the ending of the last book. Voldemort would, no doubt, have backstabbed each and every one even at his own sake to spite them. Malfoy is indeed the less brave one of the two; that is his purity as a Slytherin. He has his homies, his ‘fam’ and is a loyal gangster to them to the bitter end, acting completely as a Slytherin of the finest order would; taking all the blame for his son and wife’s crimes and taking all the hit in a life-long sentence to Dementor soul-eating torture in Azkaban so that his son can live a life forgiven. His son not killing Dumbledore was due to a meeting that Lucius arranged (his wife being the one Snape attached to was because she was less Slytherin like than Malfoy and therefore more trustworthy, it was nonetheless Lucius who helped arrange it as he has ‘original gangster’ ties to Snape as best friends from way back).

--

Sources - Using the default Harvard style of http://www.citethisforme.com/

All last accessed from 22-23 April 2019

[1] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2019). Definition of true. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/true
[2] Merriam-Webster English Dictionary. (n.d.). Definition of TRUE. [online] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true
[3] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2019). Definition of nature. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nature
[4] Collins English Dictionary. (2019). Assay definition and meaning. [online] Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/assay 
[5] Cambridge English Dictionary. (2019). PURE | meaning. [online] Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pure
[6] Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2019). Definition of pure. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pure
[7] Harry Potter Wiki. (n.d.). Godric Gryffindor. [online] Available at: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Godric_Gryffindor
[8] Pottermore. (n.d.). Salazar Slytherin. [online] Available at: https://www.pottermore.com/explore-the-story/salazar-slytherin



Round 2
Published:

Voldemort was essentially a Gryffindor-Slytherin hybrid, Lucius Malfoy showed pure Slytherin attributes at every stage of the HP Lore

 Really? Because in a different debate of yours, you say that Malfoy is a Slytherclaw. [1] It would appear that my opponent has at least previously believed that Malfoy does not purely represent Slytherin behavior or outright lied for the sake of an argument. Furthermore, Phineas Black said, "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid."

The first angle that Lucius Malfoy thwarts Voldemort at is the very primary thing people dislike about Malfoy Sr.; his cowardice.

From the up-front way that Voldemort went about originally taking on the baby Potter, to the consistent 1-against-1 way he keeps trying to handle Potter (with the only Slytherin-esque element being he has secret Horcruxes that end up being revealed at the end, leaving him with no secrets) Voldemort is consistently shown to have severe courage and ‘take me on’ mentality throughout the Harry Potter books and movies.

I've found that when you've more or less achieved immortality, you take more risks. There's no reason to believe that Lucius wouldn't act recklessly if all he cared about was power and he had a Horcrux. Lucius' field was politics, though, where acting recklessly is bad. Furthermore, bravery vs. cowardice is not relevant to whether or not you uphold Slytherin values. If Gryffindor bravery was in direct contradiction to a Slytherin value, then RM would have a point, but they're not.

it is mentioned that Lucius Malfoy screwed up the plan to make the Basilisk enter Hogwarts and handle Potter.

Everything about this sentence is wrong. I never said that Malfoy screwed up the plan, or that he was trying to handle Potter. I said that Lucius recklessly endangered his son, which, according to RM, would grossly undermine Slytherin values. "Slytherins... will be extroverted and loyal within the ‘family’." The plan was actually to kill Muggleborns and possibly discredit Dumbledore. 

  1. Slytherins are not power-hungry, they are patient and value power defensively.
  2. Slytherins are not without loyalty, when the loyalty does indeed serve self-interest of the ‘group’ (it’s a House after all, it’s de facto not about pure individualism at the sake of the team).

1. NO. You aren't allowed to make your own suppositions about what Slytherin values. You have no evidence that "they are patient and value power defensively."
The Sorting Hat, who literally knew Salazar, said, "And power-hungry Slytherin/ Loved those of great ambition."
SO NO, you can't say that Slytherin isn't power-hungry

2. I never said that Slytherins aren't loyal. If that is supposed to counteract my claim of self-serving nature, then you got another think coming. The phrase, "we will always choose to save our own necks," doesn't mean that you can't be loyal. It only means that Slytherins will sacrifice their 'family' before themselves. There is no evidence otherwise in the case of Lucius or Voldemort, so this point is doubly moot. Snape does sacrifice himself, but he is not part of the debate.

Salazar Slytherin wasn’t a standalone type.

I never said he was. Voldemort wasn't either. He surrounded himself with Death Eaters if you recall.


Lucius Malfoy never lets the money or power get to his head

I'm not so sure about that. He disdains the Weasleys for no particular reason when he has nothing to gain from it. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that pride is in opposition to Slytherin values, so a lack thereof wouldn't prove anything anyway.

he has ‘original gangster’ ties to Snape as best friends from way back

*laughter* Best friends? Hardly. Allies, and uneasy ones at that.


Published:
Lucius Malfoy's disdain for the Weasleys is extremely Slytherin-esque. Just as The Malfoys and Blacks were elitist bloodlines, so were the Weasleys (his wife was a Black family member who married into the Malfoys, the Blacks were more powerful where the Malfoys were more wealthy, both gained immensely from the partnership and happened to have great chemistry on top of it between the two of them as people). The movies intentionally make them seem poor and if you had as many children as they did, you'd have your wealth spread thin too, but they were one of the single most powerful bloodlines in the Gryffindor house. It's very clear that not all their children were Gryffindors, Ginny is timid, Ron is 'honest and humble' like a Hufflepuff with the chess-genius of a Ravenclaw but all the Weasleys ended up in Gryffindor because the Hat accounts for preferences (as was evident in Harry not being a Slytherin despite being in-born with traits of a father who bullied Snape and having gained traits including parceltongue fluency from Voldemort's scar and horcrux in that scar).


This source will be primarily what Pro uses when discussing Voldemort: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Tom_Riddle


Last accessed 25th-26h April 2019. 


Ultimately the source is JK Rowling's works, this ultimate source isn't available for free to access so it involves trusting second-hand sources such as the highly regarded Fan-Wikis if one is to cross-check facts and doesn't own the books.
 
Tom Marvolo Riddle was grown as an orphan, suffering many tendencies that implied a personality who was less evil due to cunning and patience and much more so due to impulsive-tendencies and aggression.


The combination of narcissism and sociopathy, as opposed to the less egotistical psychopathy of some other prominent Slytherins, is very blatant in that Voldemort not only ruled by might but you always knew where you stood with him. The fact everyone in the entire series always knew exactly where they stood with him, even when he was his original-body Wizard-self of Tom Riddle, is quite revealing that he had a very underdeveloped Slytherin nature and was most likely there solely due to callousness and asking the Hat to put him there (which is neither revealed for or against in the books).


Voldemort liked to think of himself as a supreme villain and mastermind but ultimately was a see-through strategist who solely survived due to a combination of good luck (getting to know Horcruxes before they became forbidden to inform people about) and simply willingness to do what others wouldn't (becoming immortal via Horcruxes and being fortunate enough to have a clan-following meant both that he was losing himself over time, especially his sanity, and that he was surviving in the vulnerable Horcrux-transition form by luck of having allies who wanted the power he had and who feared the actually intelligent Slytherins operating beneath him).


Correction to R1: Con, not Pro, is the one who created the debate and blamed Lucius Malfoy for the Basilisk event in a debate where he portrays Slytherins as even more evil and non-redeeming than JK Rowling was accused of portraying them, herself (was ironic, to say the least).

Lucius Malfoy understands that deception, cunning and not letting anyone outside of his family ever truly know where they stood with him was the true way to be a Slytherin. At all stages, even when Harry frees Dobby from Malfoy Sr.'s ownership, Malfoy Sr. was impossible to predict and instead the raw mechanics of the situation were the only way to truly defeat him, assuming he would be too preoccupied to notice and outplay the one doing what they did. Malfoy Sr. never once, not even in the Basilisk scenario, screws up or lets his guard slip. He was at all stages the Sun Tzu-esque master of war and deception where if you went up against him, you had no idea when he'd attack or how he'd attack.

The most blatant 1-against-1 Slytherin-esque superiority that was Lucius helping his son never have to kill Dumbledore, which Voldemort only realised long after the scenario because he wanted Draco to be forced to have a Horcrux and have a hold over the Malfoy family (having a Horcrux is illegal while being a Death Eater wasn't inherently illegal, meaning Draco would have had something to blackmail the Malfoys with, in order to silence them as time went by). 

Voldemort is hot-headed, which Con strongly agrees to. The reason that hyper-brave aggression when combined with sinister motives is a Gryffindor-esque way to go about things, as opposed directly to a Slytherin-esque way to go about things, is that it capitalises on the opponent's fear or clumsiness, not their guilt or naivety. In actual fact, every single fight that Voldemort has in the entire book was one where he overcomes the opponent with might or loses to superior strategy. At no stage, not even once, was Voldemort successful in deception and when trying his best at it, it was his very own ego and need to 'warn' and incite terror in others that screwed up the plan for him. This is conceded by Pro due to complete incapability to reply to that section of Pro's R1 thus far.

Con also never replies to Pro's insistence on the analogy of an ISIS-terrorist (which blatantly is not considered at all to be a good or true Muslim) being precisely what Voldemort was to Slytherin ideology. This analogy is so brutal because it highlights that severity of output 'in the name of' a cause is not at all what is morally or rationally correct to consider the superior form of it, let alone truer. Lucius Malfoy was a loyal father, a cunning genius and a fantastic user of allies throughout the books.

The only reason he ended up in Azkaban was due to the very loyalty to his son and involvement in the Dumbledore killing and Basilisk scenario both of which involved him being the patient, cunning one and Voldemort being the 'look at me' one who lets the enemy see them coming (yes both had one being the reason it went well until the other screwed it up).

Malfoy has a legacy, Voldemort not only refused to have children but was all around so vile that unless he used brute force, it's unlikely any woman would mate with him. Note that I said brute force, why is it that I didn't say potions or spells that would manipulate their brain? That's because it is very anti-Voldemort's MO to use deception or finesse, which is the very signal of how severely non-Slytherin he was.
Round 3
Published:
Lucius Malfoy's disdain for the Weasleys is extremely Slytherin-esque. Just as The Malfoys and Blacks were elitist bloodlines, so were the Weasleys (his wife was a Black family member who married into the Malfoys, the Blacks were more powerful where the Malfoys were more wealthy, both gained immensely from the partnership and happened to have great chemistry on top of it between the two of them as people). The movies intentionally make them seem poor and if you had as many children as they did, you'd have your wealth spread thin too, but they were one of the single most powerful bloodlines in the Gryffindor house. It's very clear that not all their children were Gryffindors, Ginny is timid, Ron is 'honest and humble' like a Hufflepuff with the chess-genius of a Ravenclaw but all the Weasleys ended up in Gryffindor because the Hat accounts for preferences (as was evident in Harry not being a Slytherin despite being in-born with traits of a father who bullied Snape and having gained traits including parceltongue fluency from Voldemort's scar and horcrux in that scar).
You say "Lucius Malfoy's disdain for the Weasleys is extremely Slytherin-esque," but then the rest of the paragraph is completely irrelevant. The line "The Malfoys and Blacks were elitist bloodlines, so were the Weasleys" would actually indicate that the Weasleys are somewhat close to being equal to the Malfoys. Furthermore, the Weasleys are a pureblood family, not elitists.  

[the Weasleys] were one of the single most powerful bloodlines in the Gryffindor house.
Even more reason that a Slytherin would do his best not to make enemies with them.

Everything else in that paragraph is irrelevant. 

the Hat accounts for preferences
In that case, it is very possible that Lucius isn't a true Slytherin at all. Obviously, this isn't a strong argument, but I'm including it because it increases the probability that you're wrong. Of course, you could pull it the other way on me, but Lucius actually has a pre-existing bias towards Slytherin because his entire family was Slytherins.

The combination of narcissism and sociopathy, as opposed to the less egotistical psychopathy of some other prominent Slytherins, is very blatant in that Voldemort not only ruled by might but you always knew where you stood with him.
Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
Psychopath: a person with a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.
"the less egotistical psychopathy"
You evidently don't know what you're talking about.
Furthermore, you earlier indicated that Slytherins have strong family bonds, etc., which is very contradictory to the antisocial behaviors of a psychopath of a sociopath.

The fact everyone in the entire series always knew exactly where they stood with him, even when he was his original-body Wizard-self of Tom Riddle, is quite revealing that he had a very underdeveloped Slytherin nature and was most likely there solely due to callousness and asking the Hat to put him there (which is neither revealed for or against in the books).
How does "everyone... always knew exactly where they stood with him" indicate a "very underdeveloped Slytherin nature"? Clever and blatant are not inherently antonyms. Salazar Slytherin had very vocal opinions and stances, specifically his pureblood elitism. There's nothing in any of the originally established Slytherin values that contradict this.

[Voldemort] wanted Draco to be forced to have a Horcrux
Untrue. Voldemort never wanted anyone to be immortal besides himself.

every single fight that Voldemort has in the entire book[s] was one where he overcomes the opponent with might or loses to superior strategy.
You know, other than every time he gets overpowered by Harry, whose only "superior strategy" seems to be expelliarmus. Let' see you try to defy a prophecy. Voldy tried to kill Harry, time and time again. 

 At no stage, not even once, was Voldemort successful in deception and when trying his best at it, it was his very own ego and need to 'warn' and incite terror in others that screwed up the plan for him. This is conceded by Pro due to complete incapability to reply to that section of Pro's R1 thus far.
I assume that the first instance of Pro was supposed to be me, not you.

If you're referring to the theatrics of Book 2, it is unfair to judge Voldemort by the actions of the 15-year-old Tom Riddle. 

Con also never replies to Pro's insistence on the analogy of an ISIS-terrorist (which blatantly is not considered at all to be a good or true Muslim) being precisely what Voldemort was to Slytherin ideology. This analogy is so brutal because it highlights that severity of output 'in the name of' a cause is not at all what is morally or rationally correct to consider the superior form of it, let alone truer. Lucius Malfoy was a loyal father, a cunning genius and a fantastic user of allies throughout the books.
Voldemort is a terrorist? Hah! Yet you admit how prominent Malfoy's role at the side of Voldemort is. Furthermore, Lucius has proven that he has other types of power to control people with, so he's doing brutal things knowing he has an alternative. Voldemort has no wealth or influence, so really, takeover was his best option.

Voldemort not only refused to have children but was all around so vile that unless he used brute force, it's unlikely any woman would mate with him.
Thank you for showing your ineptitude in the field. The Cursed Child, since you clearly didn't know, has Voldemort's daughter as the main antagonist. Bellatrix Lestrange was the mother.

You say that Voldy's lack of finesse or deception is anti-Slytherin, but his methods were effective. You avoided this in previous rounds, but I already stated that Voldemort basically took over the ministry. Lucius falls in power more and more as Voldemort's plans progress, Voldemort acknowledged that Lucius is dangerous, which is why he is dominant over him. 


What other arguments of mine have you ignored?

in a different debate of yours, you say that Malfoy is a Slytherclaw.

bravery vs. cowardice is not relevant to whether or not you uphold Slytherin values. If Gryffindor bravery was in direct contradiction to a Slytherin value, then RM would have a point, but they're not.


Published:
in a different debate of yours, you say that Malfoy is a Slytherclaw.
RM in another debate is not RM in this debate. Pro is free to disagree with something that is said in another debate. You will note that in the debate that Con is referring to, RM explicitly only mentions that if forced to be in the six houses under a system that combines the four into set of 2, Malfoy Sr. would be Slytherclaw. RM was wrong in that debate to say that Lucius was a 50/50 split. RM won the debate mainly because Type1 forfeited. RM would have been thwarted by Pro in this debate for stating that Malfoy Sr. was anything but a true Slytherin. Shame on you, RM in that debate.

RM doesn't even explain why Lucius is such an even split at all in that debate. He baselessly asserted it and was wrong to do so.

bravery vs. cowardice is not relevant to whether or not you uphold Slytherin values. If Gryffindor bravery was in direct contradiction to a Slytherin value, then RM would have a point, but they're not.
This is completely addressed and disproved by Pro's R1 in this debate. This is about purity, not about impossibility to mix. You can very much mix yourself between being selectively courageous and selectively cunning but this makes you a much less pure AKA truer upholder of true Slytherin values than one who is willing to so severely fuse their ethos with Gryffindor's values.

So far, Con has only ever addressed this with the following:
Voldemort is a terrorist? Hah! Yet you admit how prominent Malfoy's role at the side of Voldemort is. Furthermore, Lucius has proven that he has other types of power to control people with, so he's doing brutal things knowing he has an alternative.

What brutal things is Con referring to? Lucius Malfoy was only ever 'brutal' when it was in situations that required no particular bravery (Gryffindor), intelligence of any significant degree (Ravenclaw) or genuine good-will (Hufflepuff). Instead, the way he abused Dobby the house-elf was very cunning and behind-the-scenes (Slytherin's cunning) and the way in which he went about doing any 'brutal acts' which Con still has yet to mention a single of, considering the only 'brutal acts' Pro could ever truly make out ot be brave were under the direct orders of Voldemort the lunatic. 

Con is showing off how instrumental Lucius Malfoy was to plans that Voldemort came up with when the very plans Con is trying to use against Pro are the ones where Voldemort blackmailed Lucius Malfoy into helping out by courage and mighty threats, which are Gryffindor means of prowess and persuasion. Voldemort being the more brutal and blatant one is the very thing Con keeps showing off saying makes him a better Slytherin and truer upholder of Slytherin values?! This does not compute. Slytherins abhor bravery, especially in all situations where it was anything other than a last resort. This doesn't mean you can't have courage and still be a Slytherin value-upholder it just means you're a much more impure one than the alternative of a cowardly and cunning deceiver.

Untrue. Voldemort never wanted anyone to be immortal besides himself.
This is irrelevant. A Horcrux is an extra life at the price of halving your soul's quality. When you kill someone via magic you get a Horcrux by force. This is so hilarious to suggest that Voldemort didn't intend, of course he intended it; he was the single most blatant user and abuser of Horcruxes in the book. You physically can't kill someone with magic without having a Horcrux! It's LITERALLY impossible and also impossible that this wasn't intentionally meant to be done to Draco when Voldemort used threats and brute intimidation to get Draco to kill (despite failing to get Draco to kill, due to Lucius and Narcissa's superior cunning maneuvre's and uses of an alliance with Snape).

A Horcrux is an object in which a Dark wizard or witch has hidden a fragment of his or her soul for the purpose of attaining immortality.[1] Horcruxes can only be created after committing murder, the supreme act of evil. The process for the creation of a Horcrux involves a spell and a horrific act is performed after the murder has been committed. There are usually protective measures made to prevent a Horcrux from being stolen and destroyed, such as Counter-Charms and Jinxes. The Horcrux is considered the most terrible of all Dark magic.

Many death eaters had multiple Horcruxes, it was only Voldemort who as  as many as 7. That was all that was unique about him.

How does "everyone... always knew exactly where they stood with him" indicate a "very underdeveloped Slytherin nature"? Clever and blatant are not inherently antonyms.
Clever is Ravenclaw, cunning is Slytherin.

Cunning people are clever at planning something so that they get what they want, especially by tricking other people, or things that are cleverly made for a particular purpose

(of an action) obvious or intentional, and done without worry about what others think

very obvious and intentional, when this is a bad thing

completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner

Somehow, I don't think you can be blatant in your alliances and rivalries, let alone means, and be a better upholder of 'cunning' than someone who dedicated every single move they ever made in the HP Lore to being consistently cunning and difficult to read AKA non-blatant.

Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are more likely than are psychopaths to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society. They are sometimes unable to hold down a steady job or to stay in one place for very long. It is often difficult, but not entirely impossible, for sociopaths to form attachments with others.
Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society or its rules in general. Therefore, the meaningful attachments of any sociopath will be few in number and limited in scope. As a rule, they will struggle with relationships.   
In the eyes of others, sociopaths will generally appear to be disturbed or erratic. Any crimes they commit, including murder, will tend to be haphazard and spontaneous rather than planned. Because of their seemingly erratic behavior, sociopaths are easier for both professionals and nonprofessionals to identify than are psychopaths.

Unlike sociopaths, psychopaths are unable to form emotional attachments or to feel real empathy for others. Psychopaths tend to be aggressive and predatory in nature. They view others as objects for their amusement. Although they lack empathy, psychopaths often have disarming or even charming personalities. They are manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs.

Some psychopaths are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature. When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. They will seem unflappable in a crisis.
Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. From a law-enforcement perspective, the “cold-blooded” nature of psychopaths makes them very effective criminals. As such, they are generally more difficult to identify than are sociopaths. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to know when a psychopathic predator has targeted you for exploitation.

From a diagnostic standpoint, the etiology or cause of psychopathy is different from that of sociopathy. I contend that psychopathy is the result of “nature” (genetics), while sociopathy is the result of “nurture” (environment). Psychopathy is related to a physiological defect that results in the underdevelopment of the part of the brain responsible for impulse controland emotions (1).

Sociopathy, on the other hand, is more likely the product of childhoodtrauma and physical or emotional abuse. Because sociopathy appears to be learned rather than innate, sociopaths are capable of empathy in certain circumstances, and with certain individuals, but not others.
Ultimately, psychopathy is rarer than sociopathy, and is considered to be the most dangerous of the antisocial personality disorders. Not surprisingly, many serial killers, including Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader (BTK), and John Wayne Gacy, have been unremorseful psychopaths. Indeed, it is estimated that nearly 50 percent of all serial killers are psychopaths.
- Bonn, D. (2018). The Differences Between Psychopaths and Sociopaths. [online] Psychology Today. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths [Accessed 27-28 Apr. 2019].

Psychopaths and sociopaths share a number of characteristics, including a lack of remorse or empathy for others, a lack of guilt or ability to take responsibility for their actions, a disregard for laws or social conventions, and an inclination to violence. A core feature of both is a deceitful and manipulative nature. But how can we tell them apart?

Sociopaths are normally less emotionally stable and highly impulsive – their behaviour tends to be more erratic than psychopaths. When committing crimes – either violent or non-violent – sociopaths will act more on compulsion. And they will lack patience, giving in much more easily to impulsiveness and lacking detailed planning.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, will plan their crimes down to the smallest detail, taking calculated risks to avoid detection. The smart ones will leave few clues that may lead to being caught. Psychopaths don’t get carried away in the moment and make fewer mistakes as a result.
Both act on a continuum of behaviours, and many psychologists still debate whether the two should be differentiated at all. But for those who do differentiate between the two, one thing is largely agreed upon: psychiatrists use the term psychopathy to illustrate that the cause of the anti-social personality disorder is hereditary. Sociopathy describes behaviours that are the result of a brain injury, or abuse and/or neglect in childhood.

Psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made. In essence, their difference reflects the nature versus nurture debate.
There’s a particularly interesting link between serial killers and psychopaths or sociopaths – although, of course, not all psychopaths and sociopaths become serial killers. And not all serial killers are psychopaths or sociopaths.

But America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has noted certain traits shared between known serial killers and these anti-social personality disorders. These include predatory behaviour (for instance, Ivan Milat, who hunted and murdered his seven victims); sensation-seeking (think hedonistic killers who murder for excitement or arousal, such as 21-year-old Thomas Hemming who, in 2014, murdered two people just to know what it felt like to kill); lack of remorse; impulsivity; and the need for control or power over others (such as Dennis Rader, an American serial killer who murdered ten people between 1974 and 1991, and became known as the “BTK (bind, torture, kill) killer”).
-  Mallett, X. (2015). How to tell the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/the-difference-between-a-psychopath-and-a-sociopath-10422016.html [Accessed 27-28 Apr. 2019].

I think I do know what I'm talking about when I say that Voldemort was blatantly a Sociopath in his means far more than a Psychopath and this makes him less of a true Slytherin. It's also true that Lucius wasn't a pure psychopath, especially due to his family values but family loyalty (equivalent to House loyalty in what it is) is the only loyalty and exception to the psychopath mentality that is very Slytherin-esque.
Round 4
Published:
RM in another debate is not RM in this debate.
I'll accept this, I suppose.

You can very much mix yourself between being selectively courageous and selectively cunning but this makes you a much less pure AKA truer upholder of true Slytherin values than one who is willing to so severely fuse their ethos with Gryffindor's values.

Once again, I say that one can uphold all of Slytherin's values and still have Gryffindor characteristics and behaviors. Unless two values are inherently contradictory, it is fallacious to say that they can not coexist without undermining the other. This is a case of False Dichotomy, or in this case, tetrachotomy.

For instance, Harry and Neville both draw the Sword of Gryffindor out of the Sorting Hat, which is only possible if you're a "worthy Gryffindor," [1] since we'll treat the words of Rowling as law. And yet it is impossible to deny that Neville has Hufflepuff tendencies, and Harry, Slytherin. Therefore, one can be worthy, or true, to a House's values despite any other House values they uphold. 

the only 'brutal acts' Pro could ever truly make out ot be brave were under the direct orders of Voldemort the lunatic. 
Con falsely assumes that I label Malfoy as having Gryffindor characteristics by pointing out that he is also a terrorist. My point was that Voldemort did "Gryffindor" things because he didn't have the wealth or influence that a Malfoy enjoys.

Slytherins abhor bravery
Wrong again. There's a fine line between foolish and brave, and while a good Slytherin never crosses the line except as a last resort, Slytherins venture into the realm of bravery plenty.
As I've already stated and you've already ignored, Phineas Black said, "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid."

You physically can't kill someone with magic without having a Horcrux!
This is clearly false. We know for a fact that Bellatrix Lestrange killed Sirius in Book 5 with magic, yet did not survive the spell that Molly Weasley casts at her in THe Battle of Hogwarts, as she would if the murder had given her a Horcrux.
Horcruxes require a Dark Ritual, which includes murder, but isn't quite that simple. The circumstances of Harry becoming a Horcrux were unique, otherwise, Voldemort or someone else besides Dumbledore, including your oh-so-cunning Lucius, would have realized that Harry was one.

As far as any lore shows, no one has a Horcrux except Voldemort, and I refuse any assumptions to the contrary.

Clever is Ravenclaw, cunning is Slytherin.
Genuine word fumble. but hopefully, the point still carried.

The giant block quotes about sociopaths and psychopaths are a strawman. I was pointing out that you called the psychopathy of Slytherins other than Voldemort "less egotistical." I refuted this with the definitions I gave for sociopathy and psychopathy.
Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
Psychopath: a person with a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.
Notice how psychopaths are defined as egotistical whereas the sociopahic label you gave Voldemort is not. So either you're wrong, and psychopaths are egotistical or you're wrong about which Voldemort is. Either way, you're wrong.

I also notice that you ignored the legacy/children thing once I refuted you. Not even conceding the point is in slightly bad faith.

I ask that you do not introduce any new arguments in the final round, or that voters not count my inability to refute them when rating our arguments.



Published:
This debate was a question of purity. Throughout the entire debate Con has played pure defence despite making the description say:

Rating contending positions as equal does not constitute a victory on either part. 
BoP is shared. Prove that your position is Superior.
- Debate Description, written by Con.

The sole thing Con ever did in the debate to prove the resolution false while meeting BoP was to say that the debater for side-Pro (RM) had elsewhere claimed that Lucius was a Slytherin and Ravenclaw hybrid. This was handle in the penultimate Round by clarifying that RM was wrong in that debate.

Whether you call Voldemort a Sociopath or Psychopath, the fact he was a Narcissist isn't indicative of either. You see, narcissism and egomania are able to be present in both Sociopaths and Psychopaths. Getting a tiny snippet from a massive quote to twist things still doesn't matter. Even if Pro concedes that Voldemort is the 'other one', it still has zero impact on the point Pro was making; that Voldemort is hotheaded and passionately courageous in how he acts and thinks. This was to be held in opposition to the cool-headed psychopath mentality that is the real quintessentially Slytherin one to have.

Con also completely concedes that Voldemort is the more brutal one and that the basis of his case was simply that Voldemort was more damaging and overt. These are not Slytherin traits but simply brutal traits.

There has so far been zero, yes absolutely zero, indication by Con as to how Pro's basis of 'truer' being purity is wrong. Equally vague is how Con has gone about handling the fact that Voldemort was consistently courageous and powerful as opposed to subtle and cunning. Con says he had a mix-up with words typing 'clever' instead of 'cunning' but doesn't highlight how 'cunning' could ever apply to someone who is being blatant.

At the end of this debate one must consider who truly proved their side true and who left things entirely vague. Equal Burden-of-Proof was agreed upon by both sides, so Con has no pure-defence option.
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: This vote is sufficient
*******************************************************************
#9
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @K_Michael
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpMQbHOivY4
Contender
#8
K_Michael avatar
Added:
1 day remaining.
Instigator
#7
K_Michael avatar
Added:
Vote for Pedro!
Instigator
#6
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @Scott_Manning
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Scott_Manning // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 arguments to pro for sources
RFD: Both gave convincing arguments. Pro had more, stronger and better sources than Con. Both had acceptable spelling and grammar. Equal conduct.
Reason for mod action: In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support; (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
#5
Scott_Manning avatar
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Nice topic here. I read that book like 2 years ago but I'll try to recall it.
#4
bsh1 avatar
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Meh on the fence
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
#3
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
"This is conceded by Pro due to"
by Con due to* Pro going second is confusing to type in third person but I need to get used to this style, it helps me a lot.
Contender
#2
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @K_Michael
"In the debate that Pro links you to (where ironically Pro is saying Slyther"
Con not Pro
Contender
#1
Ramshutu avatar
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Okay, so first things first: what are slytherin values: con spells out that they are cunning, power hungry, etc: and pro does not seem to challenge this more than adding loyalty to the group, and redefining power hungry a little.
Con argues that voldermort was successful while Malfoy appeared to inherit everything. Pros main challenge is that severity of acts does not mean he upholds the values more truly. Pro comes up with an excelllent example of an ISIS terrorist - this is a great argument from pro.
Pro points out that voldermort tried to challenge HP multiple times indicating bravery (Gryffindor),
Pro points out that voldermort takes on anyone in his way, whilst malfoy shows his loyalty to the group and family.
At this point, there are so many arguments made by both sides, it’s hard to keep up and talk of them all. The main relevant crux of this, is that pro argues malfoy mostly Plotted in the background whilst voldermort was more in-your-face.
While con excused this, this is basically creating an excuse for why voldermort wasn’t living up to slytherin values.
Matters of competency and success, I give totally to pro - as pro does an excellent job of explaining success in matters is not necessarily a measure of truly upholding values.
In terms of truer, pro also successfully framed this debate about purity - casting substantial doubt on whether voldermort was pure slytherin.
There were many nit picky aspects - too many to list which I felt weren’t as relevant or as important - why did he despise the Weasley’s? Or endanger his son with the basilisk? But con didn’t get out of the shadow of pros framing here.
Pro managed to make this debate about who is a purer slytherin, and made the tightest conformance to only slytherin values - and to successfully eradicate cons only real advantage which was how successful voldermort was. I felt this meant pro was able to successfully point out that while voldermort deviates from slytherin values - and is successful, malfoy is ultimately unsuccessful, but in a way that conforms with slytherin.
As a result of this, I have to award arguments to pro - and was probably the best debate of pros I have read here so far.