The problem of Slytherin

=Pro's Arguments= (1) Missed Opportunities Pro claims Slytherin being treated poorly detracts from the series, but this is actually a point in my favour. My 1st and 2nd points show how Slytherin's portrayal was through Harry's biased eyes, and Slytherin's treatment speaks to themes of prejudice. Pro says we meet few Slytherin characters that are likeable or good. That's like complaining about a book written during WWII from a Jew's perspective encountering few good Germans. Well, yeah. Despite this, the series does paint many of the characters in a grey light. The only reason you focus on the bad aspects of Slytherin is because Harry does so. Snape is only as ambiguous in nature as Dumbledore, Sirius Black, James Potter, and several other characters we are not meant to hate. Pro complains that Dumbledore's Army had no Slytherin members. Again, that's like complaining that a racist doesn't invite any black people to his party. Pro continually ignores how a biased protagonist would impact the story. I would like the reader to consider the context of the series: this is a war founded on beliefs that Salazar Slytherin encouraged. Harry's prejudice of Slytherin is a true reflection of real life. Ron continuing to hate Slytherin even after his children are Hogwarts-age is analogous to people who were raised in a racist time and refuse to change their ways. We are meant to side with Harry who acknowledges that it's wrong. (2) Prejudice undermined My opponent actually makes a lovely argument in favour of my position. He states in his round "In the real world even fundamentally decent people can be somewhat racist and oftentimes not even noticing it." He goes on to say why Slytherin fails to fit under this description, but what he's actually describing is Harry! This is exactly why Slytherin needed to be portrayed the way that it was, given that the entire series was from Harry's POV. He's a fundamentally decent person who doesn't even realize he's incredibly biased. It's so subtle that if you blink, you miss it. Both Harry and Pro are guilty of confirmation bias by choosing to ignore good Slytherin and bad non-Slytherin. We see this in Book 7 [Ch.21] when Xenophilius Lovegood gives Harry up to Voldemort and Harry makes excuses for him. Because we know he was good at some point, because we know Luna, because Harry takes the time to understand his motivations, we don't see Xenophilius as bad. Throughout the series, we have examples of bad characters who are either not Slytherin or their houses not stated: Justin Finch-Fletchley and the entire school ostracizing Harry in Books 2, 4 & 5; Seamus Finnigan in Book 5 [Ch. 11]; Ludovic Bagman stealing the Weasley twins' money; Sirius and James tormenting Snape; Gilderoy Lockhart; Rita Skeeter; Mundungus Fletcher. Let's not forget that Harry nearly killed Draco, and Harry encounters good people and good actions from Slytherin House just as he encounters bad people and bad actions from other houses. Like Harry, Pro chooses confirmation bias and claims it is justified. This is the definition of prejudice. I win this point. =Pro's Falsehoods=1. Vanishing cabinet. In truth, Hermione is appalled, and says the twins could get into serious trouble. The reason they don't is because they immediately drop out of school. 2. Final battle. McGonagall says to Slughorn, "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes or so. If you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you." [Book 7, Ch.30] She gives them a choice, along with the rest of the school [Ch. 31]. =My Arguments= (1) Harry's POV Pro's counter of this point is full of concessions, fallacies, and contradictions that I have either already addressed, or will address in a concise list down below. He argues that there was nothing stopping Harry from meeting a good Slytherin to show that his prejudice was incorrect, yet he concedes both that Harry is biased and is wrong about Snape. The fact that Harry and Draco both interpret Ron's cough as a disguised laugh means that we can assume that this is probably true. Draco simply retaliates and Harry doesn't fault Ron at all. Regardless, Pro concedes this argument when he says Slytherin's portrayal was justified in the first few books. (2) Contributes to themes My opponent concedes that 'first impressions' "would be a great argument if we were ever shown that Harry's first impressions about Slytherin were wrong". Harry himself tells his son that he wouldn't mind if he were sorted into Slytherin, which is a direct turnaround from begging the Sorting Hat not to place him in Slytherin. This point goes to Con. Pro ignores the examples I gave of Harry being wrong regarding who to trust. He was wrong about Quirrell and Lockhart. If Pro concedes that they or any aforementioned characters are bad, he negates his own argument that only Slytherin are bad (though he already does by acknowledging Peter Pettigrew). If he doesn't agree, this furthers my point about Harry's POV colouring the lens with which you view the wrongdoings of other characters. Draco came by to introduce himself to Harry, and only brought up Ron's family after Ron laughed at his family name. He also only insulted Harry after Harry insulted him [Book 1, Ch.6]. This shows how you treat others affect how they treat you. Pro argues "If this argument were true, Tulle should be able to cite a Slytherin character who Harry mistreated and later came to terms with and realized was actually a decent person." In the real world, prejudiced people don't always come to terms with the fact that they are prejudiced so this is false. Of course, I could also cite Harry's nod to Draco and naming his son after Snape. (3) Establishes the "bad guy" Here Pro concedes Slytherin's portrayal is justified in the first few books. It matured by developing Snape and Draco, the two main foils in the series. A study found that kids who read Harry Potter were more tolerant of immigrants and homosexuals [http://tinyurl.com...]. The series' themes of prejudice were effective enough to produce a real world positive change in behaviour. It's clear that Slytherin's blatant prejudice was needed to establish the theme, and Harry's prejudice toward Slytherin was a deeper layer for more advanced readers to consider. =Pro's Contradictions, Concessions, & Fallacies=1. He claims there are no good Slytherin & concedes Snape is good. (No True Scotsman) 2. He claims only Slytherin are bad & concedes Pettigrew is bad. (No True Scotsman) 3. He says the themes would have been strengthened had Harry acknowledged his bias, and concedes "Harry does acknowledge his bias somewhat". 4. He says the series would've been better had we been forced to reflect on our own prejudice, and that's exactly what we're doing right now. 5. He says it would be compelling "to show how Harry was wrong about Slytherins" and Harry tells his son that it would be okay for him to be sorted into Slytherin. 6. He moves the goalposts by saying the moral greyness theme is undermined because we see no entirely good Slytherin. There's no reason for this to be true. Other houses have morally grey characters. 7. His concession that "treating Slytherin as the evil house in the first few books was justifiable" invalidates any claims he makes about Slytherin's portrayal in the first 3 books. 8. He concedes that Harry is biased and yet complains about Slytherin's negative portrayal. =Conclusion= As Pro said, implicit bias occurs in even the best of people. The theme of prejudice was so deep that even Pro didn't realize he was guilty of it. Pro's contradictions betray his own arguments. According to Pro, we see no good Slytherin, except the ones he admits are good; no bad people from other houses, except the ones he admits are bad; Harry doesn't acknowledge his bias, except when he does. He agrees that with these three things, the themes would have been strengthened. I assert that without Slytherin's portrayal, Harry's admission that he was wrong would be meaningless. Pro negates every argument he makes and thus fails to uphold the resolution.