The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Hufflepuff should be disbanded

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,322 times Debate No: 67802
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




This debate is about whether or not the house Hufflepuff in the Harry Potter series should be disbanded. By disbanded I mean that all the Hufflepuff students are re-Sorted into the remaining 3 houses. The BoP is shared. Please, only about the books, not the movies. First round is acceptance.


I accept your challenge!

Debate Round No. 1


I will debate that Hufflepuff should be disbanded for the following reasons:

1-Hufflepuff has no specific motive:
In each of the houses in Hogwarts, the students belonging to it possess a certain trait. Gryffindor's bravery, Ravenclaw's intelligence and Slytherin's "cleverness" (evilness). Hufflepuff is the only house without any of these traits. It's really the students who aren't outstanding in anything. This can be proved by many things: (1) Hufflepuff's mascot, the badger is likewise blah, to say the least, the other houses have an actual mascot showing their trait. (2) Nothing major happens with Hufflepuff. Gryffindor has the sword, the house is where most of the protagonists come from, etc. Ravenclaw at least has the tiara, Luna Lovegood and the The Grey Lady (the ghost that helped Harry find the tiara in Book 7). Slytherin has the ring, VOLDEMORT, and most of the other antagonists. Hufflepuff has a cup. There is a very exciting bit where they break into Gringotts to find and destroy it, but that's not really related to the actual house, and the main reason they broke in was for Gryffindor's sword. (3) Its dormitory entrance is revealed by tapping on a barrel. J.K. Rowling obviously knew Hufflepuff was not very important, so she didn't put very much work into it.

2-Being disbanded may work out better for the students:
The students in Hufflepuff would actually be doing a lot better if they were given a little more recognition. Let's take three Hufflepuff students and see how easily they would've fit into another house: Cedric Diggory, Newt Scamander and Susan Bones. Susan was already a member of the DA, so she would fit well into Gryffindor just on that. Susan Bones was the daughter of a prominent Ministry of Magic figure, Amelia Bones, so she would fit in with Ravenclaw. Cedric Diggory showed incredible bravery in Book 4 during the Triwizard Tournament. Newt Scamander is the author of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and on top of that was the headmaster at one point. He would've been an excellent addition to Hufflepuff. In fact, if these students natural talents were discovered and honed, they may have had much different, positive results. Newt Scamander could've published more books, Susan Bones could've followed in her mother's footsteps and Diggory might not have died, or at least not so quickly.



Thank youfor having me as your opponent in this debate. I wish you luck. This is a debate I am very excited to do. I am a very big fan of Hufflepuff and have always thought that this house is very underappreciated. I hope to change that through the arguments I present.

Hufflepuff: The Grounding of Morality

"You might belong in Hufflepuff

Where they are just and loyal,
Those patient Hufflepuffs are true,
And unafraid of toil"
– Sorting Hat [1]

Hufflepuff is without a doubt the greatest of the four wizarding houses due to the traits its members’ exhibit. It is not great in that it is ambitious, or powerful, or exceptionally intelligent; those are the traits that belong to the other houses. Hufflepuff is great in that the members of the house exhibit a standard of moral greatness that not just all students at Hogwarts ought to strive to achieve, but that all people alike throughout the world ought to strive to achieve.

Hufflepuffs are loyal, kind, fair, accepting, courageous, honest, and hardworking. [1] It is no wonder that this house has produced less dark wizards than any other house in Hogwarts history. [2] What is particularly great about Hufflepuffs is that they do not act morally good as a means to achieve an end. They act good as an end in of itself, for the sake of goodness. You could say that all houses can do that, but that would miss the point. Hufflepuffs can act courageous, and Gryffindors can be highly intelligent (Hermione), and Slytherins can act altruistically (Sirius Black). However, the houses do not focus on what a student has the potentiality to do, for then all houses would be mingled with each other for all students can exhibit traits from each house to at least some degree. Hufflepuff is for those who have a disposition towards caring for others, for improving their community, and being loyal to goodness, just as Gryffindor has a disposition towards being courageous, adventurous, and ambitious. To disband Hufflepuff would be a failure to appreciate those who have a disposition towards the traits Hufflepuff exhibits in the same way that by disbanding Ravenclaw there would be a failure to appreciate those who exhibit particularly great intelligence.

Hufflepuff is often depicted as dull, producing unexceptional wizards. This may be due to Hagrid’s description as them being “a lot o’ duffers” and Minerva’s explanation that Hufflepuff has not produced exceptional wizards due to Hufflepuff’s policy of accepting all people. However, this is apparently a misunderstanding for Hufflepuff has produced a large amount of great wizards such as Hengist of Woodcroft, Bridget Wenlock, Artemisia Lufkin, Grogan Stump, Newton Scamander, and Nymphadora Tonks. [1] In addition, Minerva’s explanation only emphasizes how morally great Hufflepuff is. Minerva makes it clear that Hufflepuff would sacrifice their own success in order to lift up underdogs.

Hufflepuff is the example that all other houses ought to follow in order to create not only a great Hogwarts, but to also spread moral goodness through the wizarding world. If everyone acted as a Hufflepuff did: hard working, loyal, kind, patient, the world would be in a much greater place. For these reasons, Hufflepuff is a very important house and if anything should be promoted more, not be disbanded.

Hufflepuff’s Role in the Series

Throughout Harry Potter, Hufflepuff is shown as a force of good and a strong ally of Gryffindor. Hufflepuff is in a sense, the background supporter of Gryffindor. In nearly all of the series, Harry, Ron, and Hermione are shown to be great friends with other Hufflepuffs and often join together against Slytherin, whether it be in the classroom or on the Quidditch field. This is crucial when considering the conclusion of the series, The Second Wizarding War, where good goes against evil in the form of Gryffindor vs. Slytherin. The houses were forced to choose whether to fight against Voldemort, with Voldemort, or not at all. Slytherin, being corrupted, power hungry, and often times descendents of death eaters, almost unanimously fought with Voledmort. Ravenclaw, lacking loyalty but supporting the good, for the most part decided not to get involved at all. Most Gryffindors fought in order to defeat Voldemort, however they did so out of passion, showmanship and honor, backed up by a courageous heart. Hufflepuff unanimously supported the fight against Voldemort, however they fought for a different reason. They fought not just out of loyalty, but out of support for the ultimate good of everyone. J.K. Rowling supports this notion when speaking of Hufflepuff and its role in the final battle. She states that Gryffindors are full hearty and brave, and that these traits truly pushed Gryfindors to fight against Voldemort. What was exceptional about Hufflepuffs is that they fought not out of passion, or for honor, but for the sake of good. “The Hufflepuffs weren’t showing off, they weren’t being reckless,” [3] they fought because to not fight would betray the essence of what every Hufflepuff is, an exceptional, morally good person.

J.K. Rowling says it well, “We should all want to be Hufflepuffs.” [3]

I therefore stand that Hufflepuff is a fantastic house that holds great values, and thus should not be disbanded.





Debate Round No. 2


My opponent started by talking about the people of Hufflepuff and how great they are. I am not against the people in the house, merely the house itself. Like I said in my second contention, these wonderful people could've done so much better. "Hufflepuffs is that they do not act morally good as a means to achieve an end." This actually proves my point. Hufflepuffs just look at a situation and have been trained to blunder in it with no goal other than to do the immediate "right thing." My opponent has said that houses "do not focus on what a student has the potentiality to do," but this is actually not true. Do you think the Sorting Hat decides which house to put someone in because of what they have done in the past? No, they're all 11. It decides on the basis of what a student's BEST house would be. True, Hermione was intelligent, but she said herself that the Sorting Hat seriously considered her for Ravenclaw. She was one of the three people to travel with Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes, and stayed with Harry when even Ron left in Book 7. This shows considerable bravery. My opponent's other example was Sirius Black, but he was actually in Gryffindor. "If everyone acted as a Hufflepuff did: hard working, loyal, kind, patient, the world would be in a much greater place." Not necessarily. If everyone acted as a Hufflepuff, then no advances would be made. Hufflepuffs can probably hold down fort, but not for very long.

My opponent said that Hufflepuffs have been great friends to Harry, Ron and Hermione. I am confused on this. Could my opponent please provide a couple of examples, because there are minimal examples of this. He said that in the Second Wizarding War, "Ravenclaw, lacking loyalty but supporting the good, for the most part decided not to get involved at all." This is blatantly wrong. Ravenclaws stood up to protect Harry in a major moment. He talked for a while about how the Hufflepuffs fought for goodness in and of itself. This is true, but not unlike the other houses. The Gryffindors and Ravenclaws fought for what if not for goodness? Is he accusing them of fighting for fame?

Best of luck to my opponent!



Thank you for your response.

I apologize for any factual blunders I made in my last round. I tried to go off what I remembered from reading the series and failed to fact check some of my statements. Luckily no false statements are detrimental, or really harm my case at all.

Onto my arguments.


Hufflepuffs exhibit traits the other houses do not. What is the point of each house except to sort people according to their kind? The courageous go with the courageous, the ambitious with the ambitious, the intelligent with the intelligent, and the loyal with the loyal.

My opponent states that the members of Hufflepuff could be so much more and could pursue something more than just doing what is right. However, this is simply a misunderstanding of the Hufflepuff house. Hufflepuffs like all human beings have dreams; some have become ministers, others have become scientists. Just because Hufflepuffs pursue what is morally right does not mean that their dreams stop there. The same principle applies to all of the houses. Each member of each house has their own hopes and dreams, but different members of different houses pursue these dreams according to the traits of their house.

A Gryffindor may achieve his desire through risky yet highly rewarding decisions. A Slytherin may achieve his desire through manipulation for power. A Ravenclaw may achieve his desire through wit and intelligence. A Hufflepuff may achieve his desire through honest hard work and loyalty towards a certain cause.

It is fair to say that if Hufflepuff was disbanded then the members would not fit well in other houses. The same applies to all the other houses. The point of the house system is to appreciate the students for certain traits they exhibit. Disbanding the Hufflepuff house would betray those who particularly exhibit loyalty, patience, kindness, and hard work. Just because it is feasible that members of Hufflepuff could be sorted into other houses does not mean that Hufflepuff should be disbanded all together. My opponent has yet to give us a good reason as to how disbanding Hufflepuff would contribute to the greater good of the students.

In fact, Hufflepuff house was created mostly for those students who did not fit into the other houses. “Hufflepuff helped to build the school and admitted students into her House that were loyal, fair, and unafraid of hard work. While the other founders took students based on either ambition, bravery, or intelligence, Helga Hufflepuff took the rest, treating them all equally and teaching them all she knew.”[1]


What I meant when I stated that the Sorting Hat does not sort students based on potentiality is that if a student has a tendency towards a certain trait, then the Sorting Hat will not sort that student into a house other than the trait that student best tends to exhibit, unless of a course a student desires strongly not to be put into that house (such as the case with Harry).

For example, if a student particularly exhibits loyalty, kindness and hard work, then the Sorting Hat will not sort that student into Slytherin just because that student has the secondary traits of ambition and power. The Sorting Hat would sort that student into Hufflepuff because that student already exhibits and most exhibits the traits of a Hufflepuff.

In regards to Hermione, it is probable that even though she greatly possessed the trait of intelligence, she possessed the traits of a Gryffindor moreso and was thus sorted into that House.

The original point here though is that students are sorted into houses based on their primary traits. To disband Hufflepuff would betray students who primarily exhibit Hufflepuff traits, and thus the entire point of the House system, which is to sort students into similar groups, would be counteracted.

The Role of Hufflepuffs in the Series

Specific people who were allies with Gryffindor include Susan Bones, Cedric Diggory, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Ernest Macmillan, and Hannah Abbot. Of course in the beginning of the series, particularly in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the Hufflepuffs are untrustworthy of Harry. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire tension is once again created when Harry is selected as a Triwizard competitor alongside Cedric Diggory. Despite times of tension between the two houses, Gryfindors are shown to be strong allies with Hufflepuff throughout the series, talking in the hallways, in classrooms, etc. Nearly all Hufflepuffs join Dumbledore’s Army and support Harry and Hufflepuffs were shown to be the most trusting of Harry when he claimed Voldemort had returned.

On Ravenclaw’s involvement in the Second Wizarding War, Ravenclaw severely lacked the loyalty that both Hufflepuff and Gryffindor possessed. Some Ravenclaws joined the fight, but many did not. [2]

All houses ultimately fought to defeat Voldemort, but each house came to fight against Voldemort with a different kind of mindset. Gryffindor as mentioned, had zest, courage, and honor among their reasons for fighting. Ravenclaw lacked enough loyalty towards the cause to fight against Voldemort. Those Ravenclaws who did fight did so because I assume they thought defeating Voldemort would be much more preferable than Voldemort winning the war (a logical conclusion I think many Ravenclaws could fairly make.) Hufflepuffs did not fight necessarily out of logic or courage. They fought in support of their values of the good in of itself. They fought out of support for justice, acceptance, and kindness, and loyalty to the cause of good. All fought for the good, but each house had different reasons as to why they fought for this good or what pushed them to fight for this good. Hufflepuffs’ only reason was for the good in of itself, and that is what makes Hufflepuff a great house.




Debate Round No. 3


My opponent responded to my idea that Hufflepuffs could do so much better if fully appreciated by talking about dreams and such, but he has still failed to understand my point. I was not talking about dreams, I was talking more of a training and peer example that is encouraged according to which house you're in. The Ravenclaws are encouraged to look into their studies and gain intelligence, the Gryffindors are encouraged to have bravery and courage and chivalry, the Slytherins are encouraged, to say the least, to do whatever they can to achieve their goal. Hufflepuffs such as Newt Scamander could've become much more famous successful authors. Cedric Diggory might not have died were he in any other house. In Ravenclaw, he would've known the right spell to protect himself, in Slytherin he might have used a Death Eater as a human shield or something, in Gryffindor he would've at the very least died with honor and killed some Death Eaters first. In Hufflepuff, according to my opponent, he was encouraged to be loyal, righteous and hard-working. None of these helped him!
My point that it is possible for the Hufflepuffs to fit in with other houses well was completely neglected. He said I have "yet to give us a good reason as to how disbanding Hufflepuff would contribute to the greater good of the students." Well, in fact, I have yet to find a good reason as to why they would not. In my first argument (Round 2) I provided 3 solid examples. In this argument I have expanded on two of these examples to the point where it is a tragedy that these students were Sorted into Hufflepuff.
My opponent went on to talk about how it would "betray students who primarily exhibit Hufflepuff traits," to disband Hufflepuff. I have already proven this wrong, and that Sorting students into Hufflepuff betrays them, not the other way around.
My opponent has given, upon my request, some examples of Hufflepuffs being friends with Gryffindor. I would first like to thank him for that. Unfortunately, they're still confusing to me: He mentioned many times of tension between the two groups, but then said despite that, they were still strong allies. Really, any time that Harry could be incriminated, he was by the Hufflepuffs, especially Ernie Macmillan. I don't see how they could've interacted in classes, since almost every Gryffindor class is paired with Slytherin, not Hufflepuff. Zacharias Smith and Harry were more or less enemies, and tons of Hufflepuffs quit the DA. Perhaps had they not been in Hufflepuff, they wouldn't have been so encouraged to do what they, in that moment, thought was "right" and would've instead learned to look further into the situation and see what really was right.
He, all throughout this debate, has been talking about the Second Wizarding War. While this is an interesting spectacle, let's look into the Second Wizarding War a little bit more. Who ended it? A Gryffindor. Who killed Nagini? A Gryffindor. Most of the actual advances in the Second Wizarding War were made by Gryffindors. Though Hufflepuffs fought for "good itself," they hadn't had their skills in dueling and their courage taught enough. Because of this combination, they hung back, afraid of fighting because they weren't encouraged to look into their studies as much. This is why no one ever heard of any specific Hufflepuff deaths. The war was really between Gryffindor and Slytherin.
Now, I will review my points very quickly:
1-Hufflepuff has no motive: My opponent has yet to prove that their motive is significant and actually helps them.
2-Being disbanded would work out better for the students: My opponent and I have been having something of a back-and-forth about this, but I have proven myself right throughout my case. Cedric might not have died, Scamander might've done a lot better and the Second Wizarding War might've ended a LOT more quickly. These are just a few final examples.



My opponent makes the argument that if Hufflepuffs were sorted into different houses then they would be more useful. For example, if they were in Ravenclaw they would be more intelligent, if they were in Gryffindor they would be more courageous, etc.

Even though each House certainly develops the skill of an individual, the point of the House system is to hone certain skills specific to a certain type of individual. The reason a Hufflepuff shouldn’t be sorted into Gryfindor to learn courage is the same reason as to why a Slytherin should not be sorted into Ravenclaw to learn intelligence. It ignores the specific trait possessed by each student and hones the skill that is not primarily attributed to that student. My opponent’s argument does not just apply to Hufflepuffs, it applies to every House.

His argument is basically: “If that Hufflepuff had more courage he could have survived!” Therefore disband Hufflepuff and sort that fellow into Gryfindor.

This argument could be applied to all the houses.

“If that Slytherin had more courage he would have survived!” Therefore disband Slytherin and sort that fellow into Gryfindor.

Obviously this is not enough support to completely disband a house.

Just because a certain trait is not useful in a given situation does mean that the House that hones that trait has failed, or is useless.

However, imagine if Hufflepuff were disbanded and say, Cedric Diggory, had instead been sorted into Gryfindor. This doesn’t make Cedric Diggory a Gryfindor, rather he is forced into Gryfindor because the option of Hufflepuff was not given to him. He would essentially be a Hufflepuff forced into a House that does not reflect his own primary personal values and traits.

My opponent has the burden to show that disbanding Hufflepuff would have a net positive effect. At the very least I have called into question whether disbanding Hufflepuff would have any positive effect whatsoever. In summary, I have argued that the only thing disbanding Hufflepuff would accomplish is that students who possess the traits of Hufflepuff would be forced into a house that less stands for the values the Hufflepuff does. The main problem with this is that the House system was specifically designed to put students with similar traits with each other.

Hufflepuff’s Role in the Series

My point was simple. There were times in the series where strain was put on the relationship between Gryfindor and Hufflepuff (I cited two examples), but by the end of the series the Hufflepuffs and Gryfindors were strong allies and fought together in the final battle while many Ravenclaws did not fight and most Slytherin did not.

My opponent makes the bold claim that tones of Hufflepuffs quit the DA (Dumbledore’s Army), however, after reading the entire wiki page on Dumbledore’s army I found no such thing. The wiki mentioned that “Harry was surprised to see a large amount of students from Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Ravenclaw turn up.” [1] It also states that at times the organization of the DA was broken down due to the rise of Voledmort and the death eaters in addition to problems with the Ministry of Magic. Many students were forced into hiding. At its best, any students who quit were forced to due to lack of organization and having to go into hiding.

It is unsurprising that Gryfindor did most of the major work in the Second Wizarding War. The main house of the series and all the main characters were from Gryfindor. This however, does not make the case that Hufflepuff should be disbanded just because they were not the main focus of the book. My point is that Hufflepuff stayed and fought alongside Gryfindor, and did so not out of zest, courage, or recklessness, but as a stand for their values of goodness.

Why I Win

-The Hufflepuff House represents and hones strong values that every person and society ought to pursue.

-The point of the house system is to separate students by their specific traits. By disbanding Hufflepuff, students who primarily exhibit the traits of Hufflepuff are instead sorted into a House that does not represent their values and strengths as well.

-Hufflepuff played a relatively strong role in the series, being the only House alongside Gryfindor to unanimously fight in the final battle of the series.

- I successfully called into question whether there would be a positive net gain from disbanding the Hufflepuff house. This alone is enough for my opponent to fail to uphold his BOP.

Thank you for this debate!


Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
RFD 1/2:

I confess that my knowledge of Harry Potter is rather spotty. I was, therefore, able to take each side's argument as it came, without preconceived notion.

To me, Con had a strong argument with "To disband Hufflepuff would be a failure to appreciate those who have a disposition towards the traits Hufflepuff exhibits in the same way that by disbanding Ravenclaw there would be a failure to appreciate those who exhibit particularly great intelligence", "What was exceptional about Hufflepuffs is that they fought not out of passion, or for honor, but for the sake of good", and the JK Rowling quote: "We should all want to be Hufflepuffs".

Pro, by contrast, argued that "If everyone acted as a Hufflepuff, then no advances would be made." Even if that's true, the problem here is that Con wasn't tasked with defending Hufflepuff *to the exclusion of the existence of other houses*. Even if Con is overstating the benefit of Hufflepuff, the only one advocating for less diversity and fewer houses is Pro.

As Con says, the arguments that Pro presents could be applied to any house. The main thrust of Pro's argument appears to be that he doesn't value Loyalty as a trait in its own right as much as he values the Cunning, Bravery, and Intelligence (respectively) of the other houses. But is that enough to justify disbanding the house? It doesn't seem so to me. Pro seems to think that being in a house imbues a person with the qualities of the house--that is, if Person A were in House X, they'd get traits X, but if they were put in House Y, they'd get Y traits instead. It's certainly not supported by argument in Pro's case, and I really wonder if that's how the HP world rather seems to make the sorting hat's choices arbitrary if they'll simply be whatever the house is. Con seems to get at this when he says: "...if Hufflepuff were disbanded and say, Cedric Diggory, had instead been sorted into Gryfindor. This doesn"t make Cedric Diggory a Gryfindor..."
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
RFD 2/2:

Con argues " I have argued that the only thing disbanding Hufflepuff would accomplish is that students who possess the traits of Hufflepuff would be forced into a house that less stands for the values the Hufflepuff does. The main problem with this is that the House system was specifically designed to put students with similar traits with each other", and that point seems rather to stand.

In the end, Pro had the BoP, here. And though he brought up some interesting points, he rather overstates the situation when he claims he's "proven" his side. His failure to value loyalty does not mean that we, as voters, should likewise dismiss it as unimportant.

So with all that, I'm awarding arguments to Con. I'm awarding sources as well; Con didn't have a ton of them, but given the fact that both sides were making assertions about events in this universe, it was nice that he did so. Pro didn't have any sources, and I really noticed the difference.

Conduct and S&G seemed equal enough to null.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by Dumbo 2 years ago
I don't think that Hufflepuff should be disbanded, but I do think that its main traits should be... tweaked a little bit. Because as AlwaysRight12345 said, "Gryffindor's bravery, Ravenclaw's intelligence and Slytherin's 'cleverness' (evilness)." Hufflepuff is what... nice-ness? Loyalty? They never really make what it is super clear, so if Hufflepuff's traits are tweaked a little bit, maybe it'll become more clear.

Also, can't a person be brave and evil, or smart and loyal? Can't people be a conbination of two, or even three or ALL of the houses?
Posted by Infinity406 2 years ago
I do not understand why you ban a house, because it is a part of the storyline. Yes, they were not a major part in the story. Yet, they still had a part in the story, even if their house didn't have lots to do with Gryffindor.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Since the characters you speak of are fictional, they cannot be disbanded.
Posted by z1 2 years ago
I might pick this one up. Looks cool.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.