Slytherins (the House) Are Misrepresented in the Harry Potter Books/Movies
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The is a large general discrepancy between Slytherin behaviors in HP and the Sorting Hat's and others' descriptions of the House's values.
And power-hungry SlytherinLoved those of great ambition.
We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks.
Or perhaps in SlytherinYou'll make your real friends,Those cunning folk use any meansTo achieve their ends.
Without cunning, there is no innovation. Without ambition, there is no accomplishment.
Slytherins are consistently in direct contradiction to their house values whereas the other three houses have almost no contradictions.
The fact that Crabbe and Goyle are bumbling idiots rather than cunning sociopaths does not change the fact that Slytherin fits them best
the [examples] you already provided have been shot down like a WW1 aircraft in an advanced extra-terrestrial dog fight.
Granted, I can't seem them in any of the other houses, but Rowling is still representing Slytherin badly. There should, by the math I showed earlier, be as many Ravenclaws of average intelligence as there are Slytherins of average cunning.
That's a matter of opinion.
almost every IRL Ravenclaw type is a scientist or artist.
although Ravenclaw is more straightforward than Slytherin, it is still not entirely what you would expect. Take Luna Lovegood for example, she is a right-brained Ravenclaw (more of an artist than a scientist) but Ravenclaw by it's description appears inherently left-brained in many ways. A Ravenclaw could theoretically be poor at academics and even appear dumb on the surface, but be a super-witty artistic genius who is only bright/witty when it comes to creativity.
Nothing is truly a matter of opinion.
According to basic math (1 out of 4 options), roughly 25% of the world is technically a "Ravenclaw." Obviously, artists and scientists don't make up 25% of the population, so you're most definitely wrong.
There should be, on average, one mediocre (in every aspect, left or right brained) intelligence Ravenclaw for every "conniving" rather than "cunning" Slytherin
It’s not fully clear what the resolution means, my best understanding is that pro is taking the position that the house values of Slytherin are at odds with the actions and behaviours of the individuals that are assigned to it.
What isn’t clear, is what the winning condition is. Without any clearly defined conditions, would the behaviours be at odds if the individuals would have been better in other houses? Or just if they don’t represent their house.
Pro does clearly outline the properties of slytherin, and lists some behaviours of the Malfoys and voldermort, that are exceptional and seem to go against slytherin.
These seem to be mistakes by the characters where they do not live up to the cunning and smart epithet; rather than them not living up to the house values. Con points this out, and I feel does quite well to paint these deviations as reasonable in context.
However, pro goes onto add that slytherin is more of a dumping ground for bad guys and those who don’t fit into any of the remaining houses - pointing out that there’s rarely that there is anyone so outside the generalities of the house in any of the other houses.
In essence this all boils down to the resolution. While it’s unclear to some degree, I think pro clearly elaborated on what he meant.
This is specifically about book portrayal- it isn’t about whether the individuals could technically be assigned to the house - but that syltherins are almost invariably portrayed as deviating from their house attributes whilst other houses do not.
In this respect con dropped the ball - and didn’t really address this with a substantive argument to show they were not misportrayed.
As a result Arguments to pro.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
couldn't grasp it.
I am reviewing as we speak.
Well this is underwhelming.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
You got me there. Generally, they are correctly represented, but universally, no. Same as you might have nice Nazis or mean gay people.
I said generally misrepresented, not universally. I also concede that Snape is a good Slytherin, though his sacrifice in HP 7 is more of a Gryffindor/Hufflepuff thing.
ah, my friend, you forget Albus Severus Potter, who was, like his father and namesake, a very bright, cunning boy willing to do anything to reach his goals, yet not forsaking friendship along the way.
Ok.
Debate me on Lucius Malfoy being a truer Slytherin than Voldemort, please.
I'll take Pro.
We should angle it so neither side can say 'equal' or something.