The problem of Slytherin

Since many of our arguments overlap, I'll rearrange this final round to highlight the major points in the debate. =The Resolution= Pro says "Would the series have been better off had there been a single likable Slytherin character? Ultimately that's what the resolution boils down to". This is moving the goalposts of the resolution, which is whether Slytherin's portrayal took away from the series. To reiterate my conclusion from the previous round, Pro has already admitted that having good Slytherin, bad people from other houses, and Harry realize his prejudice would have made a "better" story, and concedes all of these points. Furthermore, it's subjective what he thinks is a likable character. I personally like Slughorn. =Harry's POV= Pro continually ignores that Harry was shown that he was wrong about Slytherin. There is no other context to the final chapter of the series except to show that he acknowledges his mistake. Slytherin's portrayal is not objective because, despite the series being written in third person, we rarely see anything outside of Harry's POV. First Google result (and Rutgers University source) of third person narrative explains that "Some third-person narrators describe the story from a limited point of view; others, however, are omniscient. " [. http://tinyurl.com...] It is clear that the Harry Potter series was written in the former. There's never a scene where we're given a different level of awareness from Harry. My analogy of a German portrayal during WWII stands because it wasn't Jews vs. Germans, it was Nazis vs. everyone else. Similarly, the war in Harry Potter was founded on Salazar Slytherin's ideals--the founder himself, not the House. Consequently, it was Voldemort and his followers (regardless of House affiliation) against the wizarding world (regardless of House affiliation). Pro's contention that it took away from the series to have the Inquisitorial Squad consist of Slytherin hurts his own argument--he says the Sorting Hat being wrong about the Houses needing to come together fails internal consistency and yet he faults the Sorting Hat for being correct that Slytherin is cunning and out to survive. Pro continues to contradict himself over the Vanishing Cabinet by saying no one cared except Hermione. The three main people talking about it were Harry, Ron and Hermione; 1/3 cared and Pro has already conceded that the other two were prejudiced. The series being from Harry's POV means we don't typically see things that happen unless Harry is involved. If others were discussing the incident with the vanishing cabinet, we have no way of knowing because, as Pro has already acknowledged, the series is from Harry's POV. Pro emphasizes the Vanishing Cabinet (which are not intended to kill people) and yet ignores that Harry used Sectumsempra on Draco (nearly killing him) and was not punished at all for it! Not only that, but he also makes excuses for Harry's use of it, furthering my point about bias toward the protagonist's POV. Again, the twins could not be punished because they dropped out of school--why wasn't Harry punished? =Prejudice= In Pro's second round he admits that Slughorn is good then waffles on it. He claims Slughorn was prejudiced and yet his favourite student (Lily) was muggleborn, and Hermione, not Ron from a Pureblood family, was quickly invited to the Slug Club. It's only because he's Slytherin that Pro refuses to view him as good. Prejudice is when ambiguous actions are seen as bad simply because you are part of a certain group. Pro concedes other houses have ambiguously moral characters and yet they are good, while Slytherin can never be good. Perhaps the biggest concession Pro has made thus far is "it's very clear that many people besides Slytherin held these beliefs [about blood purity]". I would like to stress to the reader how important this is: Pro concedes that it's not only Slytherin House that was prejudiced, negating most of his own arguments! And he's absolutely right. The entire wizarding world has consistently shown prejudice when it comes to bloodline--not only with muggleborns, but also with squibs, half-giants, werewolves, house elves, and the list goes on. Pro claims that I dropped his 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. " First, I have addressed at length why Harry's POV would taint the image of Slytherin in the series. Second, Snape is not a blood purist; he immediately befriends and falls in love with a muggleborn. Nor is Slughorn, as he is impressed by muggleborns and invites them into the Slug Club. Third, in the real world, people are ambiguous. The world is not black and white or else no one would be racist, homophobic, sexist. The fact is prejudiced people maintain their beliefs because they view ambiguity as bad when it comes to the target groups. Rowling's portrayal of Slytherin was an entirely accurate reflection of real life, which Pro says was necessary to the series. =Good/Bad Slytherin vs. Other Houses= Pro continues to claim every unambiguously evil person came from Slytherin, completely ignoring my examples. He says the evils of 5 characters on my list "can be easily mitigated" without ever explaining why. This is not an argument. For the 4 whose Houses weren't specified, if it is the case that they could have been Slytherin, then it is also the case that there could be good characters who are Slytherin and simply aren't given House affiliations. For example, Mad-Eye Moody and Mundungus Fletcher could have been Slytherin. Here, Pro is in a bind: If Mundungus isn't Slytherin, then he loses the point that only Slytherin are bad. If Mundungus is Slytherin, then he loses the point that the Houses didn't come together to fight (which they did anyway--Snape). Pro cannot simultaneously claim that only Slytherin are bad and there are no good people in Slytherin, as well as there are people whose Houses we don't know so the bad ones could be Slytherin. He is effectively cherry-picking which examples confirm his bias. =The Series in Context= Pro drops my contention about the series having a real world effect in reducing prejudice, and agrees that the themes would have been stronger had we been shown not all prejudice is blatant--just like Harry's prejudice of Slytherin. =Pro's Contradictions, Concessions, & Fallacies= Pro failed to address the list in my previous round at all, so extend these arguments. He contradicts himself by saying there are no good Slytherin and Snape is good, while only Slytherin are bad but Pettigrew is bad. He concedes that Harry acknowledges his bias and thus strengthened the themes; that the series has been strengthened by us reflecting on our own prejudice; that it was compelling to show how Harry was wrong about Slytherin; and most damaging of all, he concedes that Harry was a biased character. He also moves the goalposts several times in the debate, when the scope has already been limited to whether or not Slytherin's portrayal detracted from the series on balance. =Conclusion= Pro fails to uphold the resolution because it's on balance. Even if Pro believes (yet has not established) that nice Slytherin characters would be realistic, he has never once shown how the series as a whole has been lessened by Slytherin's portrayal. He concedes every point that makes the series better, but refuses to acknowledge Slytherin House because of his own bias. In fact, I have shown in my rounds how the series has been enhanced so much so that in the real world, readers of it are more tolerant. Slytherin's portrayal highlighted the problem of prejudice (from Harry) and without it, his revelation at the end would have been meaningless. The resolution has been negated.