Lucius Malfoy Is a Better/Truer Upholder of Slytherin Values than Voldemort (As requested by RM)

True (in this context)

• Rightly or strictly so called; genuine.
  
• properly so called
  
• possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as
  

Nature

• The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.
  
• The innate or essential qualities or character of a...(in this case a member of Slytherin)
  

Assay: An assay is a test of a substance to find out what chemicals it contains. It is usually carried out to find out how pure a substance is.

Pure:

• not mixed with anything else.
  
• A pure colour is not mixed with any other colour.
  
• Involving or containing nothing else but; sheer (used for emphasis)
  

Gryffindor is said to have praised courage, determination and strength of heart above all other qualities. Indeed, he selected students for his house based upon their daring and bravery, according to the Sorting Hat. He also was the most in favour of allowing Muggle-borns into the school.

“Or maybe in Slytherin you’ll meet your real friends,

Those cunning folk uses any means to achieve their ends.”

Voldemort was essentially a Gryffindor-Slytherin hybrid, Lucius Malfoy showed pure Slytherin attributes at every stage of the HP Lore

The first angle that Lucius Malfoy thwarts Voldemort at is the very primary thing people dislike about Malfoy Sr.; his cowardice.

From the up-front way that Voldemort went about originally taking on the baby Potter, to the consistent 1-against-1 way he keeps trying to handle Potter (with the only Slytherin-esque element being he has secret Horcruxes that end up being revealed at the end, leaving him with no secrets) Voldemort is consistently shown to have severe courage and ‘take me on’ mentality throughout the Harry Potter books and movies.

it is mentioned that Lucius Malfoy screwed up the plan to make the Basilisk enter Hogwarts and handle Potter.

1. Slytherins are not power-hungry, they are patient and value power defensively.
   
2. Slytherins are not without loyalty, when the loyalty does indeed serve self-interest of the ‘group’ (it’s a House after all, it’s de facto not about pure individualism at the sake of the team).
   

Salazar Slytherin wasn’t a standalone type.

Lucius Malfoy never lets the money or power get to his head

he has ‘original gangster’ ties to Snape as best friends from way back

Lucius Malfoy's disdain for the Weasleys is extremely Slytherin-esque. Just as The Malfoys and Blacks were elitist bloodlines, so were the Weasleys (his wife was a Black family member who married into the Malfoys, the Blacks were more powerful where the Malfoys were more wealthy, both gained immensely from the partnership and happened to have great chemistry on top of it between the two of them as people). The movies intentionally make them seem poor and if you had as many children as they did, you'd have your wealth spread thin too, but they were one of the single most powerful bloodlines in the Gryffindor house. It's very clear that not all their children were Gryffindors, Ginny is timid, Ron is 'honest and humble' like a Hufflepuff with the chess-genius of a Ravenclaw but all the Weasleys ended up in Gryffindor because the Hat accounts for preferences (as was evident in Harry not being a Slytherin despite being in-born with traits of a father who bullied Snape and having gained traits including parceltongue fluency from Voldemort's scar and horcrux in that scar).

[the Weasleys] were one of the single most powerful bloodlines in the Gryffindor house.

the Hat accounts for preferences

The combination of narcissism and sociopathy, as opposed to the less egotistical psychopathy of some other prominent Slytherins, is very blatant in that Voldemort not only ruled by might but you always knew where you stood with him.

The fact everyone in the entire series always knew exactly where they stood with him, even when he was his original-body Wizard-self of Tom Riddle, is quite revealing that he had a very underdeveloped Slytherin nature and was most likely there solely due to callousness and asking the Hat to put him there (which is neither revealed for or against in the books).

[Voldemort] wanted Draco to be forced to have a Horcrux

every single fight that Voldemort has in the entire book[s] was one where he overcomes the opponent with might or loses to superior strategy.

 At no stage, not even once, was Voldemort successful in deception and when trying his best at it, it was his very own ego and need to 'warn' and incite terror in others that screwed up the plan for him. This is conceded by Pro due to complete incapability to reply to that section of Pro's R1 thus far.

Con also never replies to Pro's insistence on the analogy of an ISIS-terrorist (which blatantly is not considered at all to be a good or true Muslim) being precisely what Voldemort was to Slytherin ideology. This analogy is so brutal because it highlights that severity of output 'in the name of' a cause is not at all what is morally or rationally correct to consider the superior form of it, let alone truer. Lucius Malfoy was a loyal father, a cunning genius and a fantastic user of allies throughout the books.

Voldemort not only refused to have children but was all around so vile that unless he used brute force, it's unlikely any woman would mate with him.

in a different debate of yours, you say that Malfoy is a Slytherclaw.

bravery vs. cowardice is not relevant to whether or not you uphold Slytherin values. If Gryffindor bravery was in direct contradiction to a Slytherin value, then RM would have a point, but they're not.

in a different debate of yours, you say that Malfoy is a Slytherclaw.

bravery vs. cowardice is not relevant to whether or not you uphold Slytherin values. If Gryffindor bravery was in direct contradiction to a Slytherin value, then RM would have a point, but they're not.

Voldemort is a terrorist? Hah! Yet you admit how prominent Malfoy's role at the side of Voldemort is. Furthermore, Lucius has proven that he has other types of power to control people with, so he's doing brutal things knowing he has an alternative.

Untrue. Voldemort never wanted anyone to be immortal besides himself.

A Horcrux is an object in which a Dark wizard or witch has hidden a fragment of his or her soul for the purpose of attaining immortality.[1] Horcruxes can only be created after committing murder, the supreme act of evil. The process for the creation of a Horcrux involves a spell and a horrific act is performed after the murder has been committed. There are usually protective measures made to prevent a Horcrux from being stolen and destroyed, such as Counter-Charms and Jinxes. The Horcrux is considered the most terrible of all Dark magic.

How does "everyone... always knew exactly where they stood with him" indicate a "very underdeveloped Slytherin nature"? Clever and blatant are not inherently antonyms.

Cunning people are clever at planning something so that they get what they want, especially by tricking other people, or things that are cleverly made for a particular purpose

(of an action) obvious or intentional, and done without worry about what others think

very obvious and intentional, when this is a bad thing

completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner

Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are more likely than are psychopaths to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society. They are sometimes unable to hold down a steady job or to stay in one place for very long. It is often difficult, but not entirely impossible, for sociopaths to form attachments with others.
Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society or its rules in general. Therefore, the meaningful attachments of any sociopath will be few in number and limited in scope. As a rule, they will struggle with relationships.   
In the eyes of others, sociopaths will generally appear to be disturbed or erratic. Any crimes they commit, including murder, will tend to be haphazard and spontaneous rather than planned. Because of their seemingly erratic behavior, sociopaths are easier for both professionals and nonprofessionals to identify than are psychopaths.

Unlike sociopaths, psychopaths are unable to form emotional attachments or to feel real empathy for others. Psychopaths tend to be aggressive and predatory in nature. They view others as objects for their amusement. Although they lack empathy, psychopaths often have disarming or even charming personalities. They are manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs.

Some psychopaths are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature. When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. They will seem unflappable in a crisis.
Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. From a law-enforcement perspective, the “cold-blooded” nature of psychopaths makes them very effective criminals. As such, they are generally more difficult to identify than are sociopaths. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to know when a psychopathic predator has targeted you for exploitation.

From a diagnostic standpoint, the etiology or cause of psychopathy is different from that of sociopathy. I contend that psychopathy is the result of “nature” (genetics), while sociopathy is the result of “nurture” (environment). Psychopathy is related to a physiological defect that results in the underdevelopment of the part of the brain responsible for impulse controland emotions (1).

Sociopathy, on the other hand, is more likely the product of childhoodtrauma and physical or emotional abuse. Because sociopathy appears to be learned rather than innate, sociopaths are capable of empathy in certain circumstances, and with certain individuals, but not others.
Ultimately, psychopathy is rarer than sociopathy, and is considered to be the most dangerous of the antisocial personality disorders. Not surprisingly, many serial killers, including Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader (BTK), and John Wayne Gacy, have been unremorseful psychopaths. Indeed, it is estimated that nearly 50 percent of all serial killers are psychopaths.

Psychopaths and sociopaths share a number of characteristics, including a lack of remorse or empathy for others, a lack of guilt or ability to take responsibility for their actions, a disregard for laws or social conventions, and an inclination to violence. A core feature of both is a deceitful and manipulative nature. But how can we tell them apart?

Sociopaths are normally less emotionally stable and highly impulsive – their behaviour tends to be more erratic than psychopaths. When committing crimes – either violent or non-violent – sociopaths will act more on compulsion. And they will lack patience, giving in much more easily to impulsiveness and lacking detailed planning.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, will plan their crimes down to the smallest detail, taking calculated risks to avoid detection. The smart ones will leave few clues that may lead to being caught. Psychopaths don’t get carried away in the moment and make fewer mistakes as a result.
Both act on a continuum of behaviours, and many psychologists still debate whether the two should be differentiated at all. But for those who do differentiate between the two, one thing is largely agreed upon: psychiatrists use the term psychopathy to illustrate that the cause of the anti-social personality disorder is hereditary. Sociopathy describes behaviours that are the result of a brain injury, or abuse and/or neglect in childhood.

Psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made. In essence, their difference reflects the nature versus nurture debate.
There’s a particularly interesting link between serial killers and psychopaths or sociopaths – although, of course, not all psychopaths and sociopaths become serial killers. And not all serial killers are psychopaths or sociopaths.

But America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has noted certain traits shared between known serial killers and these anti-social personality disorders. These include predatory behaviour (for instance, Ivan Milat, who hunted and murdered his seven victims); sensation-seeking (think hedonistic killers who murder for excitement or arousal, such as 21-year-old Thomas Hemming who, in 2014, murdered two people just to know what it felt like to kill); lack of remorse; impulsivity; and the need for control or power over others (such as Dennis Rader, an American serial killer who murdered ten people between 1974 and 1991, and became known as the “BTK (bind, torture, kill) killer”).

RM in another debate is not RM in this debate.

You can very much mix yourself between being selectively courageous and selectively cunning but this makes you a much less pure AKA truer upholder of true Slytherin values than one who is willing to so severely fuse their ethos with Gryffindor's values.

the only 'brutal acts' Pro could ever truly make out ot be brave were under the direct orders of Voldemort the lunatic. 

Slytherins abhor bravery

You physically can't kill someone with magic without having a Horcrux!

Clever is Ravenclaw, cunning is Slytherin.

Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Psychopath: a person with a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.

Rating contending positions as equal does not constitute a victory on either part. 

BoP is shared. Prove that your position is Superior.