Dragons are Awesome Pets.

Concedes the argument by admitting the awesomeness of dragons as pet. Forfeit awards conduct points to Con.

Conduct to Con because he didn't forfeit. Arguments to Pro because Con shot himself in the foot by semi-conceding that dragons could be awesome pets, and also throwing in a kritik far too late for Pro to respond and understand. Rules of the debate are stated in the 1st round, and cannot be manipulated in the last round. Here's the kicker, Con even used "are" for dragons, implying he also broke his imaginary, unspoken rule.

Conduct; Con.
Pro (as the instigator of the debate) failed to appear until the final round. Technically speaking, common debate etiquette says that you can't introduce any new arguments in the final round, so Pro really shouldn't have argued at all after missing all the early rounds. Poor form in general.

Spelling and Grammar; Tie.
Roughly equal on both sides.

Sources; Tie.
Neither side used any...

Arguments; ...Tie?
Because Pro failed to appear in the first two rounds, Con had nothing to argue against (due to there also being no debate description). Regardless, Con still offered several small arguments about dragons in round one. Dragons breathe fire, have sharp teeth and are scary, thus are not good pets. With no sources to support this claim, the opinion is a bit subjective, but he at least offered something.

In the final round, Pro finally made an appearance and argued that Dragons are good pets because they are loyal if given food, can serve as a security system and provide a fast method of travel. Again, no sources were offered to support these subjective opinions. Con's rebuttal is that dragons are fictional. Alright, fair enough, but if dragons are fictional that would both negate Pro's arguments as well as the arguments that Con offered in the first round. The debate also never really specified if the topic was being discussed from a "literal" standpoint or if it was intended to be an analysis of factional works regarding dragons.

Neither side had a terribly strong argument here, so tie, I suppose.

Overall one point victory for Con due to following through on all debate rounds, minus Pro forfeiting multiple rounds.

The semantic arguments in the last round come too late, but conceding that dragons are awesome pets in the final round, I'll accept. Other than that concession being a tiebreaker, other arguments by both sides were dropped. Conduct to con for not forfeiting

I do not care about conduct when it comes to forfeiting. Con brought up a totally new angle (not just points) that Pro had no chance to reply to, in the Last Round so while Pro forfeited 2 Rounds (which allowed Con to build a case unchallenged for longer) it really cannot compare to what Con tried to do in the last Round.
Con would have won this debate had they said that troll-angle on the topic from the start but instead Con says that Dragons are not real in Round 3 but in Round 1 blatantly isn't talking 'would be' but rather 'are/is' present tense. It is in no way at all correct to do what Con did in a debate, this is absolutely impossible for me to vote Con without lying about the reality of who debated better. Pro wins because Pro uses absolutely every point Con brings in the first Round against himself. The intimidating threat that dragons impose make them fantastic pets if you use them defensively and Con never explained how you can't tame them while Pro didn't explain how you could but since Pro strongly hints at feeding being a passive means of taming them, Pro met this burden of proof.

Full forefeit.

Pro forfeit multiple rounds. But when he did speak, he changed my mind.