K, if we’re missing your points it’s because they seem to change from post to post depending on your stance of the day — making me wonder if even you’ve got them pinned down fully. percyfan’s already covered most of what I was going to reply to, but on the Quidditch and point system:

1. You’re going to have to define a game “that truly mattered”. Critics throw this bullshit term at anything under the sun, with the single common denominator being how unfair it makes the person or thing they’re bitching about seem for having alleged advantages that aren’t actually considered advantages by anyone else. The VAST majority of Harry’s Quidditch fame comes from his first three years at Hogwarts. Between the ages of 14 to 17, he plays and wins exactly two games for Gryffindor, both at the beginning of books five and six respectively, neither of which secure a guaranteed win of the yearly tournament,  nor recognize him as the only or even main “star” of the games (this position generally belongs to Ron, Ginny, or both). He’s restricted from even playing the rest of the games in “Phoenix” and “Prince”, and of course isn’t even at school in the final year; if/when Gryffindor wins the Cup it’s without him. 14 to 17 are the earliest ages that most of your hopeful athletes would even consider beginning to take their sport seriously enough to sacrifice and place improvement and practice over fun and sheer love of the game when they play — which makes sense, because please, find me the coach or talent scout that’ll care more about the talent an applicant had as a preteen superstar than about the fact that he hasn’t played more than two full games since he was 14. Because that goes hand in hand with the decreased attention given to Quidditch that you yourself pointed out in later books, but how it fails to connect as a believable trade-off for you is beyond me. Yes, Quidditch mattered more to Harry, and by extension to the first three books when he had less to worry about, but is that your criteria of the games that truly matter? If so, I’m compelled to point out how few 11 – 13 year olds you’ll find willing to devote anywhere near the amount of commitment or sacrifice a high-schooler would to, well, anything, much less a game they aren’t playing either for sheer fun or because they’re just good at it. Harry put in a decent amount of work to supplement the talent for his age (he fucking took extra classes in “Azkaban” just to help his game), and even then he still lost, or couldn’t play, or won through plain luck more than he won through actual talent. But it wasn’t the level of discipline seen in high school jocks. The years when most athletes work for champion status are the years when Quidditch doesn’t matter as much to Harry – and he therefore DOESN’T get this champion status.  If logic matters at all to your point, you can’t actually have it both ways.

2. Point system: you keep saying we’re missing your point here, but if you ask me, the problem seems to be that you assign an unjustified amount of weight and authority to Harry’s perception for a character you’re simultaneously dismissing as a douchebag. Where the fuck are we given the slightest idea that the point system collapses if one doesn’t know WHY a student earns or loses points? Whenever Harry picks up that kind of information it’s always through the rumor mill, it’s ALWAYS strictly gossip (which happens at every school in existence) and to our knowledge has little to no effect on the direct outcome of the competition. You know the one time it did? First book, when Dumbledore had to explain why Slytherin wouldn’t be winning the Cup despite having ended the year with the most points in their hourglass. Before this point, there’s no sign of anyone trying to get a record of who got which points and why — the system would be a lot fairer if this were checked for, but while various Gryffindors grumble a lot about Snape’s favoritism in “Stone”, not even McGonagall challenges Snape on his initial win or exactly what Slytherin gained all those points for. Indicating either that the reasons don’t matter, or that there’s no way for Snape or anyone to have skewed the results in a way that actually violates the rules or conditions of the contest. Still unfair, sure, because whatever the rules are they clearly allow for teacher bias, but not unusual for a recreational school merit system, especially one that has no direct influence over the students’ education. It ultimately just determines which House gets a trophy and a party in their honor at the end of the year. If Suzy First-Year’s the one who earns Gryffindor its winning points in her Charms class, we’re given no reason to believe it would matter less than Hermione’s earning points for her gajillion correct answers. It might matter less to *Harry* because he doesn’t know Suzy First-Year while Hermione’s his best friend. The books being in his POV might mean it would get more focus if it were Hermione instead of Suzy. Nowhere are we lead to assume the system would stop working entirely if it were Suzy and not Hermione, though. It’s fact that Gryffindor didn’t win the Cup in “Phoenix”; they had the least amount of points at the end of the year. No, Harry wasn’t at the party for the winning House, Sirius having just died and all, but we know there was a party, because when Harry comes across Luna he asks her why she wasn’t there. We’re not led to believe this party consisted of the collective student body staring at each other in silence, or that the Great Hall ceased to exist for the night since Harry wasn’t there. 

There’s not much else to seriously address in your argument, since much of your gripes are with ideas that Rowling DIDN’T put into her books, but you would prefer she had, which to me is a laughable measure by which to criticize the actions of the book’s characters. I don’t even know how to approach your later stance on Draco: it’s not that he was a dick, it’s that the author set him up to be seen as a dick by Harry? Perhaps so, but I fail to see how that actually makes him less of a dick, or why a reader should see Harry as a bigger one for not wanting to befriend someone openly bigoted AND contemptuous of him from word one. How is he in the wrong there?
(It’s been addressed, but I’m always amazed when the “Draco clearly wanted to be friends, look how talkative he was to a kid dressed in the raggedly Muggle clothes Harry would’ve been dressed in that day” argument is made, especially by the same people who later claim to have issues with wizards who treat Muggles condescendingly. Um, really?)  And on a comparative scale, I’m more amazed that the open contempt with which Draco treats his own friends and people he wants to befriend, doesn’t strike the same nerve that Harry’s occasional (and silent) contempt does. I strongly and completely disagree that watching Harry befriend someone who saw him as a lesser being due to his bigoted upbringing would have made for a more compelling story – it may just be a matter of opinion and taste, but it smacks of the same attitude seen from those who think Lily was wrong to write Snape off as a friend after he called her the wizarding equivalent of a racial slur, and perhaps that story might be interesting for the character doing the changing, but it always without fail comes at the detriment to the other character. You know, the one showing readers that if your friend is cool enough, it’s utterly okay to overlook his racist bullshit even when it’s directed your way! I’ll pass.

And yes, Harry is every bit the average schmuck with the same amount of decency and fallibility found in anyone. This is the whole reason I gave for posting here in the first place, by the way — it’s impossible not to notice how many of the posts on this thread are dripping with the exact same judgmental/dismissive/self-righteousness/hypocrisy/arrogant attitude they’re skewering Rowling’s characters and Rowling herself for. Or point it out. I’m a bit puzzled at the notion that Rowling somehow failed at her craft or unleashed a danger on the literary world by creating a character with flaws so ordinary and relatable I was literally seeing them exhibited on the screen by people criticizing those same flaws when I posted. And…what, your answer to this contradiction is “he’s no better than I am, but no one’s being asked to call me the Chosen One’? You realize this stance rests almost entirely on a specific reading and assumption that we MUST accept Dumbledore’s high (and repeatedly-shown-to-be-biased) opinion of Harry as fact, despite Dumbledore himself having been discredited rather thoroughly in “Deathly Hallows”? Half the series is dedicated to showing how dangerous or wrong it is to place more trust in reputation and hearsay over truth, because there’s always a giant-ass crack between the fallible person and the public legend of the person. It’s THE running theme of the series, from Lockhart right up to Dumbledore, I think it’s safe assuming the Chosen One moniker should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Yes, in Harry’s case the Chosen One legend meant an entire world of adults (Dumbledore included) felt okay dumping a war and a genocidal maniac almost exclusively on his non-special-and-unqualified shoulders for him to deal with, which is unfair and weird but there are worse lessons to teach kids than “if you’re saddled with an unfair job that people are depending on you to do, suck it up and deal”. And this is just one of a million different ways to interpret HP. The idea that a hero must be perfect or saintly beyond relatable flaws isn’t just crazy to me, but is also one I’ve yet to see supported without an argument along the lines of “well Rowling indicates HERE, and said on THIS day or in THAT interview of THAT magazine she meant Harry to be seen as a saint”. Which honestly? Just makes me wonder what train of logic allows for open interpretation and “Death of the Author” with authors one enjoys, while Rowling’s intentions and opinions are clung to more obsessively by her critics than by her fans.

It’s fascinating, but again, hardly evidence that Harry fails as a written character or even an influential one, in the sense that he encourages moral corruption.