The Montreal Canadians are the best hockey team in NHL History
Debate Rounds (4)
Second and third for arguments
Fourth for conclusion.
Les Habitants have won the most Stanley Cups of any team with 24 including a record 5-year run in the 1950s.
Since it's inception in 1945, 61 Canadiens have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of fame, at an average of just under one every year.
While they may not have made the playoffs this year, they do more often than not.
While I concede that it is possible to argue with current statistics, the resolution was about NHL history, not one specific season.
With a litany of incredible and iconic players, including a number of players who have innovated the game to what it is now (eg. Jacques Plante's mask). This, coupled with their outstanding history, makes the Montreal Canadiens the best hockey team in NHL history.
Most Stanley Cups: 23, by the Montreal Canadiens (the Canadiens have won the Stanley Cup 24 times, but their first win came in 1916, before the NHL existed)
Most consecutive Stanley Cup wins: 5, by the Montreal Canadiens (1956–1960)
Most consecutive Stanley Cup Finals appearances: 10, by the Montreal Canadiens (1951–1960)
Most points in a season: 132, by 1976–77 Montreal Canadiens
Fewest losses in a season: 8, by 1976–77 Montreal Canadiens
3135 wins out of 6120 games since the NHL was formed. In comparison, the other Original Six teams (the only ones who have played enough games to even come close) haven't broken 3000.
There are stats to prove that the Habs are the best team in NHL history.
Now would you care to make a legitimate rebuttal?
You've still yet to make an argument.
As far as i'm concerned, there seems to be no debate. Just me providing evidence and you replying "Nuh-Uh, not good enough."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Instead of saying "I have nothing to argue against", Con should have actually attempted to make an argument. Pro fulfilled his burden of proof by giving evidence and statistics about the team he's supporting, and Con not only failed to provide evidence of any kind, but also failed to provide an argument. Note to Con: Pro isn't required to give you statistics on every single NHL team in order to fill his BOP. Expecting something like that is simply ridiculous.