Analysis of the Critique
1. Harry’s Reaction to Quirrell
The commenter’s vivid phrasing ("orgasms from praise") highlights Harry’s over-the-top applause: "He couldn’t help himself, it was too inspiring." In Chapter 16, Quirrell’s speech taps into Harry’s ego—his desire to be exceptional and his frustration with mundane authority (e.g., the Ministry’s curriculum). The critique is fair: a truly rational Harry might pause to ask, "Why is this teacher so eager to flatter me? What’s his agenda?" Instead, he’s swept up emotionally, contradicting his self-image as a critical thinker. This suggests:
Vanity Over Reason: Harry’s reaction aligns with the commenter’s view that he’s "power-hungry" and susceptible to flattery, a flaw the text later explores (e.g., his trust in Quirrell leads to Hermione’s death in Chapter 75).

Textual Intent: As the commenter suggests (via Eco), this could deliberately show Harry’s fallibility—his rationality is immature, clouded by pride.

2. Quirrell’s Speech
Quirrell’s rant—"There is no defence without offence!"—rejects the sanitized DADA curriculum for a brutal, proactive "Battle Magic." The commenter finds it juvenile and manipulative:
Appeal to Rebellion: Phrases like "fat, overpaid politicians" resonate with a ten-year-old’s disdain for authority, not a reasoned critique. It’s rhetoric, not argument, lacking evidence for why the old curriculum fails or how Quirrell’s approach succeeds.

Missing Responsibility: The absence of any mention of consequences (e.g., the ethics of hurting others first) is a glaring omission. A rational teacher might balance offense with duty, but Quirrell’s speech is pure provocation.

Suspicious Tone: The commenter’s right—a teacher trashing the system on day one, promising dangerous skills without safeguards, should raise red flags. Harry’s failure to notice this supports their "not a single rational thought" jab.

In HPMOR’s context, Quirrell’s speech reflects his cynical worldview (and likely Voldemort’s influence), but the critique holds: it’s more theatrical than substantive, and Harry’s applause feels unearned.
3. Harry’s Character Flaws
The commenter paints Harry as a nerdy, power-hungry kid thrilled by Quirrell’s promise of "after-school activities" where he can "show the world your own abilities." They tie this to a speculative Yudkowsky revenge fantasy:
Inconsistency: Harry’s earlier caution (e.g., avoiding Diagon Alley for safety in Chapter 5) clashes with his eagerness for military games. The commenter exaggerates ("didn’t want to leave the house for a frying pan"), but the shift from timid to reckless is abrupt.

Power Hunger: His excitement at leading an army fits the "strong woman" trope (likely a sarcastic misgendering), suggesting ambition trumps reason. This tracks with Harry’s later actions (e.g., Chaos Legion’s chaos in Chapter 30), but the critique overplays it as mere vanity.

Authorial Projection: The "Lazik Yudkovsky" dig implies HPMOR is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. While speculative, it’s not baseless—Harry’s precocious intellect and Quirrell’s mentorship mirror Yudkowsky’s rationalist ideals, though the text also critiques Harry’s flaws (e.g., troll failure).

4. Rationality Failures
The commenter lists missed opportunities for rational scrutiny:
No Military Academy Context: Harry doesn’t question why a school, not a war academy, needs "Battle Magic." In HPMOR, Hogwarts’ history includes darker DADA phases (e.g., pre-Interdict), but Harry’s lack of skepticism is a fair critique.

Ignoring Apparition: Quirrell omits Apparition, a key defensive tool (per Chapter 16’s dueling focus). The commenter’s hypothetical retort—Harry could argue it’s all he needs—exposes Quirrell’s narrow scope and Harry’s blind spot.

No Consequences: Quirrell’s "hurt them first" ethos lacks a counterweight. A rationalist might ask, "What if I hurt the wrong person?" Harry’s silence here weakens his claimed brilliance.

These align with later plot points (e.g., Harry’s trust in Quirrell backfires), but the commenter’s point is that this scene should already trigger doubts.
5. Textual Intent and Charisma
The commenter’s three questions probe deeper:
Necessity: The scene establishes Harry’s admiration for Quirrell, setting up their dynamic and his eventual betrayal. It’s necessary for plot and character, but the commenter questions if it’s just reader bait ("identify with the protagonist"). It’s both—narrative glue and a rationalist lure.

Hitler Analogy: Unlike Hitler’s interlocutors, who saw through his charm later, Harry never reflects on Quirrell’s weak arguments here. This could show charisma’s power—Quirrell’s delivery overwhelms logic—but the commenter finds it implausible for a "brilliant" rationalist. In HPMOR, Harry’s later doubts (e.g., Chapter 66) come too late, supporting their critique.

Charisma Portrayal: Quirrell’s commanding presence and anti-establishment vibe fit classic charisma, but the commenter doubts this justifies Harry’s lapse. HPMOR may intend to show rationality’s limits against emotional sway, yet it risks making Harry look foolish.

6. Broader Critique
The final point is damning: if HPMOR champions rationality but shows Harry failing to spot Quirrell’s villainy (revealed as Voldemort in Chapter 108) and botching key moments (e.g., troll attack), it undercuts its mission. This resonates:
Pattern of Failure: Harry’s trust in Quirrell, poor troll strategy (Chapter 75), and reliance on theory over practice (e.g., armies) suggest rationality alone isn’t enough.

Discrediting Rationality: The commenter argues this makes the text a cautionary tale, not a triumph. HPMOR counters this by having Harry learn from mistakes (e.g., post-troll resolve in Chapter 86), but the critique holds weight—his early naivety feels at odds with the story’s ethos.

Evaluation
The commenter nails several flaws:
Harry’s irrational enthusiasm clashes with his rationalist persona.

Quirrell’s speech is manipulative and thin, yet Harry doesn’t probe it.

The scene prioritizes drama over skepticism, risking HPMOR’s credibility as a rationalist text.

However, they overreach:
The "Yudkovsky fantasy" is speculative, ignoring Harry’s growth and flaws as deliberate.

Quirrell’s charisma and Harry’s lapse serve a narrative purpose—showing rationality’s human limits—though the execution may falter.

Conclusion
The critique exposes a tension in HPMOR: it wants Harry to embody rationality but often shows him swayed by ego and charm, especially here. Quirrell’s speech is inspiring only if you buy its bravado, which Harry does too easily. The scene sets up key dynamics but, as the commenter argues, risks discrediting the very principles it promotes when Harry’s brilliance doesn’t shine through.


Summary of the Critical Comments
Lack of Purpose and Depth:
The commenter questions why these roleplays exist, dismissing them as neither entertaining nor serious. They argue the exercises fail to teach meaningful lessons about war (e.g., geography, logistics), referencing Clausewitz’s emphasis on such fundamentals.

Organizational Choices:
Harry’s decision to divide his army into "6 platoons of 4 soldiers" with "Platoon Advisors" is mocked for its arbitrariness. The commenter demands a rationale for the number four, contrasting it with real-world examples like Rhodesian tactics.

Muggle Camouflage Uniforms:
The use of Muggle camouflage over wizard robes is highlighted, with Quirrell’s explanation (robes hinder forest maneuvering) met with sarcasm ("they had never walked among the trees before"). The commenter finds this a weak justification.

Missed Strategic Opportunities:
They suggest smarter tactics—camouflaged observation posts, communication networks, artillery-like spells, or Apparition to the enemy’s rear—over the simplistic broom reconnaissance and forest marches depicted. The "geniuses" (Harry, Draco, Hermione) underperform.

Rationality and Outcome:
The commenter argues the roleplays aim to showcase rationality in strategy and organization but instead show "banal clashes" where cunning tactics lose. This undercuts HPMOR’s rationalist premise.

Relevance to "Battle Magic":
They question how these games relate to "Battle Magic," echoing Quirrell’s redefinition of DADA, and find no clear connection explained in the text.

Harry’s Rational Silence:
They imagine a sharper Harry challenging Quirrell’s narrative about Voldemort’s success, citing Auror failures in counter-guerrilla tactics rather than abstract unity. His failure to do so frustrates them.