Places to Chat
Chatterbox: Chirp at Cricket
Reasons defending Slytherin
1. There are tons and tons of videos and articles out there on why Slytherin's not evil.
2. All Houses have their stereotypes. Gryffindor for being show-offs, Ravenclaw for being nerdy, Hufflepuff for being losers, Slytherin for being evil. None of them are true, why should Slytherin be any different?
3. I'm Slytherin. I wouldn't follow Voldemort.
4. Not all bullies were Slytherins. James Potter, the Gryffindor, was the bully to Severus Snape, the Slytherin, the victim.
5. Regulus sacrificed himself against Voldemort. Snape received hate and mistrust from both sides and was lonely and secretive for most of his life. He endured pain, and eventually sacrificed, too. Slughorn may have been annoying, I'll admit that, but he fought the Death Eaters. Narcissa Malfoy risked her life by telling Voldemort that Harry was dead. Draco also betrayed Voldemort.
6. If Harry hadn't met Ron or Hagrid, then he wouldn't have known about Slytherin's evil reputation. Then he wouldn't have refused when that Sorting Hat tried to put him in Slytherin. And if Harry hadn't met Ron or Hagrid, the hero and good guy of our books would be in SLYTHERIN! And Harry is not evil!
7. I'll admit that most of Voldemort's followers were Slytherin, and that Hufflepuff turned out the least Dark Wizards. Rowling said so. But her wording--"Hufflepuff turned out the least Dark Wizards of all the Houses"--Makes me think that there were more than one. Pettigrew brought Voldemort back to life, and he was in Gryffindor. Quirrel tried to get the Sorcerer's Stone for Voldemort. . . And he was Ravenclaw! Look it up.
Notice how I had seven points!!! Seven is a Harry Potter number!!!!! :D
Okay, rebuttals? Daisy? Gared? Brooke?
Those are just people off of the top of my head who think that Slytherin is evil.
Xiǎo tùzǐ says dire. No, this debate is not dire, it is about a book.
submitted by Mei-xue (May-shreh), Fairyland
(August 1, 2016 - 2:47 pm)
(August 1, 2016 - 2:47 pm)
I'm not a part of this debate, but I'm just wondering...
are we talking about the book itself? Because if so- all the characters in Slytherin are pretty nasty. A couple of them turn out to not be entirely evil, but overall it's a bigoted house. I don't put it down to being ambitious or recourseful being evil, merely the fact that JK Rowling, however much I love her, completely failed that bit of world building. She has the "good" house that gets life handed to it on a golden platter, the "evil" house (to be honest... if the entirity of Slytherin is evil and a breeding ground for blood purists, why wasn't it just abolished?), and the two "sidekick" houses. It annoys me so much!
If we're talking about in actual real life/beyond the world of the books... well, look at it this way. Imagine being super ambitious, wanting to do something so badly. Maybe the thing you absolutely will not give up is the fact that you want you and your family to have a good life, and you work super hard to get it. Maybe you're going to go to the moon, or build artifical intelligence, or make it so even the poorest of people can run a campaign for being President.
ambitious (adjective) having or showing a strong desire to succeed
Google doesn't say WHAT, and that's because you can be ambitious for ANYTHING. Being recourseful or cunning can me the tiniest, most harmless little things- enjoying puzzles and riddles, really wanting to get good grades, wanting to do the most impossible seeming things, like publish a book as an eleven year old or something- is that evil? Is wanting to succeed evil? It can be, but in principal, it is not.
If we're talking about how ridiculious Slytherin's potrayl is in the books, I'm down for a good long rant about that. But if you want to tell me this means that the concept, of working hard for something you really want to get done, for not giving up on your dreams, is evil, I will have to respecfully disagree.
(August 5, 2016 - 9:32 am)