The problem of Slytherin

Thanks, Tulle.=My case= Would the series have been better off had there been a single likable Slytherin character? Ultimately that's what the resolution boils down to, and I think that it's clear the answer is yes.I. Tulle again brings up that the series is from Harry's POV this provides even more reason to show why he was wrong about Slytherin. She compares this criticism to complaining about a holocaust novel portraying Germans negatively except that the war was not Gryffindor vs. Slytherin but rather the Order vs. The Death Eaters and within Hogwarts itself there were other struggles such as the students vs. Umbridge. There was nothing stopping Rowling from having a Slytherin in the DA--lots of people eventually joined who weren't initially invited. Instead she decided to have every member of the Inquisitorial Squad be a Slytherin. For Rowling to directly contradict the sorting hat by having Harry only needing 3 of the houses to save Hogwarts was incredibly irresponsible and if nothing else undermines internal consistency. Remember as well that the twins nearly murdered a student and no one cared except Hermione because the student was a Slytherin. The incident is played off as unimportant not only by characters but by the author as she chooses not to examine the fact that two major characters nearly killed someone for no reason. Tulle is correct that there are morally ambiguous members of the other houses, and this is just the point. They are all morally ambiguous. Not evil. Everyone who is unambiguously evil from Voldemort to Bellatrix to Crabbe came from Slytherin and every character who was unambiguously good like Luna or Lupin came from another house. The best represented Slytherin, Snape, was a malicious man who bullied preteens, willingly joined Voldemort and didn't care if innocents died--if this is the best 25% of the population has to offer Slytherin must be very evil indeed. Tulle is in a double bind: Either every Slytherin is, at best, a jerk who bullies kids which makes the portrayal too simplistic or there are truly good Slytherins and Rowling chose not to show them to Harry which makes him overcoming his prejudice a lot less compelling. Tulle argues that the war was about Slytherin's beliefs on muggleborns but it's very clear that many people besides Slytherin held these beliefs--both Harry and Ron's families were pureblood for centuries until very recently as were many other families. Like I argued in my second contention, to make Slytherin's alone blood purists was incredibly simplistic. Tulle argues that Harry overcame his prejudice but here's the issue: he really shouldn't have. Ron was right--why *would* any responsible parent want their 11 year old child to go into the house filled with bullies and privileged bigots that spawned every known death eater except for one? If we're meant to side against prejudice, having every objective fact argue in favor of prejudice is a funny way to do it. II.Tulle entirely drops my argument that portraying literally every blood purist as a Slytherin and every Slytherin (even the half blood ones) as blood purists was a terrible narrative and makes a mockery out of real prejudice. Extend this point and vote Pro, because softening Slytherins reputation by showing bigotry in other houses instead of their exclusive sin would've driven home a point about the pervasiveness of discrimination that Rowling lost. Tulle makes an interesting argument by saying that we're supposed to subtly realize that the reason we only see bad Slytherins is because of Harry's own bias, except the series is written in third person so he isn't an unreliable narrator and whatever bias he has against Slytherin is more than justified. Remember that the manifestation of pure evil loved the house so much he was going to abolish the others.Tulle accuses me of confirmation bias, but if you actually look at the objective facts about Slytherin, the house deserves it's bad rep. She brings up a myriad of bad things done by others but here's the thing--none of these people are wholly bad and their actions make sense. Xeno is a perfect example of how Rowling failed to portray Slytherin properly. Tulle claims that we sympathise with him because Harry chose to take the time to understand him, but that's simply untrue. Read the conversation--we know his motivations because Rowling chose to reveal them to us by having him give an unsolicited explanation. She could've done this to Slytherin characters but she didn't. As for all of the other bad characters--four of them we weren't given house affiliation so they're irrelevant to the debate as they could've been Slytherins, and the rest are easily mitigated. Harry almost killed Draco by accident, in self defense. The school turned against Harry because they were incorrectly led to believe he was a terrorist, a cheater, or a liar respectively. Whatever Sirius and James's sins, both died fighting against pure evil. If Slytherin characters sans Snape had circumstances that mitigated their dark deeds, we aren't given them.Every Slytherin left before the final battle--the imagery in the chapters leading up to the battle (Ch 29-31) is simple incredible. The absence of a Slytherin banner in the room of requirement. The other three houses standing as one to protect Harry from the Slytherin table. Every Slytherin leaving as people from other houses stayed to fight. To vote Pro, all you need to do is agree that the series would've been more compelling if a Slytherin character had taken a stand and fought. As it was, Slughorn was told he had the chance to leave with "his students"--heavily implying the Slytherins were not staying. If Harry actually met good Slytherins and Rowling chose not to show that, I can hardly be blamed for believing when my bias is confirmed. =Tulles case=1. Tulles response on this point involves arguing about Snape and seriously suggesting that laughing at someone's name justifies mocking their dead parents. As it stands everything objective we have to about Slytherin proves that they are indeed an unpleasant lot, the home of the all bigotry and, with one exception, every dark witch/wizard. She really can't outweigh this at all--it seems pretty ridiculous to have practically every single person on the evil side from one house when they constitute only 25% of the population. POV can only explain so much, objective facts are much more important and support my position. 2. Tulle argues that since Harry said he was okay with his son being in Slytherin then clearly the theme of prejudice holds but the problem with this argument is that it could've been done better. Seriously, what's more compelling, a world where Harry advises his son against prejudice because he was gradually shown that his prejudice was wrong as he made a Slytherin friend, or some joined the DA, or fought against Voldemort, or a world where Harry advises his son against bias because one manifestly cruel and creepy--if sympathetic and brave--character happened to be a Slytherin? If you choose the former, you vote Pro. Whatever positive effect Slytherin had on the themes of the series would've been better if Rowling had portrayed them more realistically and sympathetically. To vote Con requires accepting that it was a good thing to confirm Harry's bias with objective fact and to show every Slytherin as, at the very least, unlikable. 3. Tulle makes a big deal out of me admitting that establishing a rival house was fun for the first few books, but ultimately it carried no impact as Rowling had the perfect set up to bring in a good Slytherin character in the later books (especially 5) and doesn't do it. Whatever impact the series had on real world issues would've been made even stronger by showing the not all prejudice is blatant and that you can't just know who is or isn't a bigot at first glance--a serious issue in combating racism. My second contention about realism turns the point.The resolution is affirmed.