A Guide To Arguing Intelligently About Meta Knight

[Yuna]

Ummmm... so are you saying that taking away 6 months of a man's life and sending him to a place where he may suffer severe violations of human rights is equivalent to banning a character in a videogame for a period of time?

I'm sorry, Prison = Severe violations of human rights since when now? Just because American prisons are like that does not mean all prisons world-wide are like that.

What if his stay is perfectly fine? Nothing really bad happens besides the fact that we just "ban" him for 6 months?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a fixation on counters. Some people talk as if they play a different character for every opponent they face, when in reality it's rare that people don't just play their main. Lots of people seem to live in a fantasy world where Marth was trivialized in Melee because people just went Shiek whenever they wanted to instantly beat him.

And that matchup was, what, 6-4? Horrible counter, I know!

Yuna, the point of this topic is not to advance arguments that I might not even agree with. Those are just the current state of things on the table, and I invite people to go to the Meta Knight discussion topic(s) and argue there. Your post is a prime example of a good one, because it addresses what the intelligent Pro-Ban advocates are actually saying rather than the trivial arguments that have been refuted tiem and time again.

But the problem is that I refuted that fallacious argument months ago using the exact same arguments I just used here. Thus, it's not, at all, one of the arguments on the "pro"-side with the most merit.

The point of this thread is to bury those dead arguments which have been proven flawed, not assert that all other arguments have no flaws.

I proved that argument flawed months ago. I just did it again. Can someone refute me or can we remove it from the OP now?

Considering that I don't really feel the one he picked for the anti-ban side has much merit either...I think they're best left as examples that haven't been completely proven to be fallacies, and argued if they actually show up in a discussion about banning MK.

See above.

You didn't manage to completely disprove it, you referenced Melee, other games, not "having" to counterpick, and Japan. None of that shows whether counterpicking is in reality a significant aspect of competitive Brawl in our region or not. If you can't completely disprove the point so it can be listed as one of the fallacies, then it is in fact a valid one up for debate in support of banning MK.

I also referenced Brawl. See my above post, I again referenced Brawl there. Countpicking is not all necessary. We do it because we want to. It makes things easier but are not in any way necessary. Thus, it's not at the core at all.

About all I'll give you is you showed it's not the "core" of the game.

I was arguing against the argument as it was presented. I was not arguing against your rewritten version of it.

I won't give you that it's anything less than "significant" though, and that it still matters to the longevity and overall health of competitive Brawl unless you get a far stronger point than you had against it -- so we're just arguing semantics, until you can show why it's completely irrelevent.

Are you saying that without significant counter-picking, Brawl has no lifespan? That counter-picking is "significant" and "necessary" in order for Brawl to even survive as a Competitive game? Because that's not at all what I was arguing against and you know it.

Present your argument and I'll argue it. But not here as it's not suitable for this thread. I was arguing against an argument presented in the OP as one of the most optimal ones for intelligent debate. I was not arguing against your revised version of it.

 

[Tien2500]

I'm sorry, Prison = Severe violations of human rights since when now? Just because American prisons are like that does not mean all prisons world-wide are like that.

What if his stay is perfectly fine? Nothing really bad happens besides the fact that we just "ban" him for 6 months?

Well I said possibly. I didn't say he would have his human rights violated. I said he might. But anyway instead of arguing about the prison system why not explain the long term damage a temporary ban to MK would cause?

 

[salaboB]

Are you saying that without significant counter-picking, Brawl has no lifespan? That counter-picking is "significant" and "necessary" in order for Brawl to even survive as a Competitive game? Because that's not at all what I was arguing against and you know it.

Present your argument and I'll argue it. But not here as it's not suitable for this thread. I was arguing against an argument presented in the OP as one of the most optimal ones for intelligent debate. I was not arguing against your revised version of it.

You're the one declaring you "won" by proving CP isn't core to Brawl. I'm saying it's important whether it's core or not.

If you're not able to see that the argument you're addressing was a poorly worded absolute that's still a reflection of an actual point, there's nothing to be said.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I edited the above post to expand upon that. I thought you meant it would be detrimental to MK's metagame but I guess you meant something different. But anyway I think the value in seeing exactly how MKs absence would effect the metagame is worth having MK players use their secondaries for a period of time.

It still placed an unfair disadvantage to a character who didn't deserve it.

A ban should be used for something that breaks the game so badly it needs to be removed. By placing it so other character could play catch-up forces people to play other characters even though the ban is known to be unneeded.

It's not fair to the MK players to place an unfair ban on him when the end result ends up being the same.

 

[Tien2500]

It still placed an unfair disadvantage to a character who didn't deserve it.

A ban should be used for something that breaks the game so badly it needs to be removed. By placing it so other character could play catch-up forces people to play other characters even though the ban is known to be unneeded.

It's not fair to the MK players to place an unfair ban on him when the end result ends up being the same.

Yes but what is the damage to the MK player overall? They will have to use a secondary and assuming they are good Smash players they should be good with their secondary anyways. (Unless of course they don't have secondaries since you may not need one if you play MK). But knowing how a ban will effect the Metagame is I feel significant information which may be worth inconvenience to MK players over a short period.

Oh and I should mention that the issue here is a temporary ban and not a complete and total ban.

 

[Thinkaman]

Yuna, the problem isn't so much the theory itself, but that people actually believe it and actually switch to Meta Knight as their main because of it. The Pro-Ban argument, as it stands now, is that eventually so many people will subscribe to this theory that tournaments are flooded with Meta Knights.

Whether or not you or I agree with that theory, and whether or not it has been refuted in the past, "everyone switching to Meta Knight because he has no counters" is the talking point at the forefront of the MK-banning discussion. Simply put, I can't bury something that isn't dead. I invite you to go chat with Overswarm and resolve the matter.

 

[Yuna]

Well I said possibly. I didn't say he would have his human rights violated. I said he might. But anyway instead of arguing about the prison system why not explain the long term damage a temporary ban to MK would cause?

I'm sorry, I used the term "long-term damage" or anything remotely like that when? I merely pointed out the unfairness and stupidity is banning MK "just temporarily" if such a ban is not warranted, i.e., if MK is innocent of the crimes he is accused of.

Stop rewriting my posts in your head or "refute" my post by strawmanning them or bringing in different, though connected, topics. I am arguing a few things in this thread. These are the only things I'm arguing. I am not interested in arguing anything else, that's what the main MK-ban-or-not thread is for.

Don't rewrite my posts in your head, don't bring up connected but really not things. That is not intelligent debate. That's intelligent weaseling.

You're the one declaring you "won" by proving CP isn't core to Brawl. I'm saying it's important whether it's core or not.

Whether it's important or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not MK "breaks" it in such a way that he basically breaks the game. What's also relevant is whether or not it's necessary to stand a reasonable chance of winning.

No, it being "important" (subjective, much) and widely used does not matter. What matters is if the metagame would die with MK around to "break" it.

If you're not able to see that the argument you're addressing was a poorly worded absolute that's still a reflection of an actual point, there's nothing to be said.

I'm arguing that it should either be removed or at the very least reworded. It has no place in the OP touted as an argument of great substance.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm arguing that it should either be removed or at the very least reworded. It has no place in the OP touted as an argument of great substance.

Would you simply like me to re-word the proceeding paragraph so that it sounds like less of an endorsement? I can't change what other people are arguing, and it does not yet fall into the same category as the rest of the refuted nonsense.

 

[salaboB]

I'm arguing that it should either be removed or at the very least reworded. It has no place in the OP touted as an argument of great substance.

Again, you referenced Melee, other fighting games, Japan, and "only because we want to do it". Note how the only one of those directly relevent to Brawl in our region is the wanting to do it one, and you had no backup from tournament results to support that it makes such a minor difference.

Point of fact, Azen said he played something around 6 characters at that last big Hobo that everyone references constantly, and he needed to play all of them to get to where he did. Also, many tournaments list people with two characters, while it's not everyone it's certainly a large number using a main and a second. If counterpicking was minor and a character that lets you ignore it completely thus has no impact, you shouldn't see so many people bringing out secondary characters at tournament level -- they should all be focused on one.

You haven't disproven it being important, or even core (Though I believe that could be successfully argued, just not the way you tried), at all.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Yes but what is the damage to the MK player overall? They will have to use a secondary and assuming they are good Smash players they should be good with their secondary anyways. (Unless of course they don't have secondaries since you may not need one if you play MK). But knowing how a ban will effect the Metagame is I feel significant information which may be worth inconvenience to MK players over a short period.

Oh and I should mention that the issue here is a temporary ban and not a complete and total ban.

It force him to use another character when he had every right to use MK if he wasn't ban worthy.

It's not fair to place a "handicap" on any player that exclusively mained him, forcing then to learn another character.

If MK is just going to end up as good as was already, as if he wasn't temp banned, then why temp ban him if the end result is the same?

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, the problem isn't so much the theory itself, but that people actually believe it and actually switch to Meta Knight as their main because of it. The Pro-Ban argument, as it stands now, is that eventually so many people will subscribe to this theory that tournaments are flooded with Meta Knights.

10.000 people doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons doesn't make it right. 10.000 people being wrong is not any less wrong than just 100 people being wrong. If "enough" people subscribe to a faulty theory despite there being ample evidence of the contrary, than they deserve the suckfest they create.

If "enough" people believe someone is guilty of a crime, is it then any less wrong than if only 10 people believe it? Should we "ban" them either by running them out of town or jailing them despite lacking evidence if "enough" people feel that we should?

Whether or not you or I agree with that theory, and whether or not it has been refuted in the past, "everyone switching to Meta Knight because he has no counters" is the talking point at the forefront of the MK-banning discussion. Simply put, I can't bury something that isn't dead. I invite you to go chat with Overswarm and resolve the matter.

What makes you think I've haven't addressed this issue at least 29 times in the past several months already?

Yes but what is the damage to the MK player overall? They will have to use a secondary and assuming they are good Smash players they should be good with their secondary anyways. (Unless of course they don't have secondaries since you may not need one if you play MK). But knowing how a ban will effect the Metagame is I feel significant information which may be worth inconvenience to MK players over a short period.

Oh and I should mention that the issue here is a temporary ban and not a complete and total ban.

So we should ban MK because not banning him is "forcing people to play as him"... however, banning him would force people to play as other characters... but that's OK, really, even if it ends up being proven that you're not forced to play as MK to win, but banning MK forces players to not play as him.

Once side has a choice, the other does not.

 

[Tien2500]

I'm sorry, I used the term "long-term damage" or anything remotely like that when? I merely pointed out the unfairness and stupidity is banning MK "just temporarily" if such a ban is not warranted, i.e., if MK is innocent of the crimes he is accused of.

Stop rewriting my posts in your head or "refute" my post by strawmanning them or bringing in different, though connected, topics. I am arguing a few things in this thread. These are the only things I'm arguing. I am not interested in arguing anything else, that's what the main MK-ban-or-not thread is for.

Don't rewrite my posts in your head, don't bring up connected but really not things. That is not intelligent debate. That's intelligent weaseling.
.

I didn't say you used those terms. I was just asking you a question. I was trying to respond to your post to the best of my ability. I'm not trying to weasel out of your point or anything. I may not understand your arguments perfectly. If I misinterpreted you, you could clarify it without accusing me of trying to somehow change your argument or "weaseling" which I was certainly not trying to do.

Speaking of clarification

So we should ban MK because not banning him is "forcing people to play as him"... however, banning him would force people to play as other characters... but that's OK, really, even if it ends up being proven that you're not forced to play as MK to win, but banning MK forces players to not play as him.

I'm not sure what exactly you meant here... My argument is that a temporary ban would give us insight as to how MK effects the metagame and this knowledge outweighs the inconvinience to MK mains... I didn't say anywhere that MK is the only viable character or that you are forced to use him.

 

[aeghrur]

Let's not ban metaknight, jigglypuff hard counters him. Let's ban jigglypuff now. [/sarcasm]

 

[rehab]

I would never have guessed that you were being sarcastic

 

[Thinkaman]

What makes you think I've haven't addressed this issue at least 29 times in the past several months already?

I'm well aware, and I wish your efforts had not been largely in vain; then I wouldn't even have needed to make this thread. (Which very well may be equally in vain.)

 

[Yuna]

Again, you referenced Melee, other fighting games, Japan, and "only because we want to do it". Note how the only one of those directly relevent to Brawl in our region is the wanting to do it one, and you had no backup from tournament results to support that it makes such a minor difference.

I'm sorry, you can discern that Brawl requires counter-picking by simply staring yourself blind at tournament results? Pray tell, how?

Theory and even practice disprove you. Unless everyone is cataclysmic ally wrong about Brawl's match-ups, the Tops and Highs pretty much 50:50 (except Meta) to 60:40 each other most of the time. In practice, the top players do quite well against each other in 60:40 match-ups.

Point of fact, Azen said he played something around 6 characters at that last big Hobo that everyone references constantly, and he needed to play all of them to get to where he did. Also, many tournaments list people with two characters, while it's not everyone it's certainly a large number using a main and a second. If counterpicking was minor and a character that lets you ignore it completely thus has no impact, you shouldn't see so many people bringing out secondary characters at tournament level -- they should all be focused on one.

Azen is different. Azen counter-picks people as Peach for goodness sake. Also, people counter-picking does not prove they have to counter-pick. Have you seen the match-ups where they were forced to counter-pick?

Like, say, someone's Snake vs. someone's Marth where they were magically forced to counter-pick someone because of the 60:40 being just too hard to fight? As in that they got beaten by such a wide margin there was no reasonable chance of winning?

And then they counter-picked and won? People doing it is not proof of anything. If 29,000 people jumped off a bridge, does that mean it's good for you? No, this is not a faulty analogy, really.

Why does it need to be done?
"People do it, thus it proves that if needs to be done!"

But why do people do it?
"Because it needs to be done!"

Circular reasoning.

You haven't disproven it being important, or even core (Though I believe that could be successfully argued, just not the way you tried), at all.

I'm sorry, what evidence do you have that it's important, really? It's your argument (that or you're playing Devil's Advocate for the lulz), the burden of evidence lies on you.

I didn't say you used those terms. I was just asking you a question. I was trying to respond to your post to the best of my ability. I'm not trying to weasel out of your point or anything. I may not understand your arguments perfectly. If I misinterpreted you, you could clarify it without accusing me of trying to somehow change your argument or "weaseling" which I was certainly not trying to do.

This thread is not about arguing about whether or not MK should be banned in bringing in random new arguments for either side. Doing is so going off-topic and against forum rules.

This thread is a guideline for arguing intelligently about the matter at hand. I pointed out flaws in the OP. Either refute my attempt to refute the OP or PM me whatever else you want to talk about.

I'm well aware, and I wish your efforts had not been largely in vain; then I wouldn't even have needed to make this thread. (Which very well may be equally in vain.)

Then why does the OP claim that the argument I've already refuted 29 times over is one of the most valid ones out there?

 

[aeghrur]

I would never have guessed that you were being sarcastic

Inorite? I'm so clandestine about that stuff. Hehehe.

 

[Thinkaman]

Then why does the OP claim that the argument I've already refuted 29 times over is one of the most valid ones out there?

Because, like it or not and against all efforts you may have made, "everyone switching to Meta Knight" remains the main argument of the leaders of the Pro-Ban side. People arguing against a ban need to address this topic, as you have done here, and not the other pointless ones that are already dead and no longer being advocated.

I bolded the keyword in your quote, BTW.

 

[XienZo]

Woot, we finally have a thread for this! We should link this thread in the argument threads in bold letters though, since none of the people who don't bother to check info will bother to look through this either by themselves.

I can't tell if Yuna's debating ABOUT debating or about MK, but if its the latter, shouldn't it be in the 2+ threads we have for that?

 

[salaboB]

Then why does the OP claim that the argument I've already refuted 29 times over is one of the most valid ones out there?

Because you haven't refuted it yet, even once in this thread.

The best you've mustered against it is that because it's not "required" it's not "important". That's hardly conclusive evidence that counterpicking isn't a key aspect in Brawl's competitive culture in our region (I wish I could quit saying that but as soon as I do I just know you'll bring up Japan again -- can we pretend I always say "in our region" unless I specify otherwise?)

Your "The matchups are pretty even among the top tiers" falls when you look at stage counterpicking in addition to character counterpicking. Yeah, it would be accurate if we were stuck on only the neutral stages -- but that's not how we do counterpicks.

Everything else is just trying to draw parallels that don't exist so directly. Japan, other fighting games, and Melee are unrelated to whether counterpicking in Brawl has a significant impact on tournaments.

I brought up tournament results where people have multiple characters (Sometimes three, and not just Azen) listed as ones they played seriously during the tournament. I brought up how frequently these listings show up. You have yet to explain why something that happens so commonly is not an important aspect of the game, when the rulesets for tournaments themselves have been crafted so carefully to allow that to happen reasonably (ie, getting to ban counterpick stages to ensure you're not counterpicked too badly, but only one so that you can still be counterpicked by character + stage). You now have something you may disprove if you can.

And *you* declared you had refuted the point. Where is your evidence of refuting it if you won't even admit there is a point? You can't argue against smoke and mirrors, and you can't have refuted a point that never existed.

The point still stands as debatable.

 

[Thinkaman]

I can't tell if Yuna's debating ABOUT debating or about MK, but if its the latter, shouldn't it be in the 2+ threads we have for that?

Yuna was arguing about the content of the original post.

Also, if the other topics are Meta-Meta Knight discussion, that makes this the Meta-Meta-Meta Knight discussion.

Well, I laughed.

 

[Yuna]

Because, like it or not and against all efforts you may have made, "everyone switching to Meta Knight" remains the main argument of the leaders of the Pro-Ban side. People arguing against a ban need to address this topic, as you have done here, and not the other pointless ones that are already dead and no longer being advocated.

I bolded the keyword in your quote, BTW.

The reasoning for why people will switch to him is flawed. You can argue that it might/will happen, just not with that flawed reasoning. Find a better one.

 

[salaboB]

The reasoning for why people will switch to him is flawed. You can argue that it might/will happen, just not with that flawed reasoning. Find a better one.

But it's a fact: Irrelevent to whether Brawl is focused on counterpicking or not (And you'll have to look back to my previous post where I went into detail on why you've yet to refute that one properly) people switch to MK and drop their previous mains because they believe he can't be counterpicked.

It's amazing what appearances will do, and the general belief is that counterpicking matters and that MK provides a significant advantage in it. Is it correct? Well, obviously numbers don't make things true. But it's how reality is for Brawl.

So the reasoning itself holds true when you compare it to reality and what people actually believe, and not theory and how little it does or does not actually impact things. That's also where it matters most.

 

[∫unk]

The reasoning for why people will switch to him is flawed. You can argue that it might/will happen, just not with that flawed reasoning. Find a better one.

Says the guy with 3 "mains".

 

[Thinkaman]

Hey, I'm not the one arguing here. I'm just the messenger telling people what the current argument is. You wish to continue your crusade in hopes of making it the current argument no longer, please feel free in the appropriate threads.

If I asked the "leaders" of the Pro-Ban movement what their current position is, I would get something similar to my improvisation. The arguments against a ban that you have alluded to in this very thread are similar to what I listed as well, correct?

 

[XienZo]

Well, perhaps, since Yuna's the main one argueing, you could simply put in bold letters on the front page, "IF YOU THINK THESE EXAMPLES ARE INACCURATE, AND ARE WILLING TO ARGUE FOR A FEW PAGES ON IT, YOU PROBABLY KNOW HOW TO DEBATE PROPERLY SO WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE?"

 

[Thinkaman]

Ha, well, I think Yuna is simply concerned about people reading this and having something validated that he doesn't feel deserved validation.

 

[Mortimer]

Well, perhaps, since Yuna's the main one argueing, you could simply put in bold letters on the front page, "IF YOU THINK THESE EXAMPLES ARE INACCURATE, AND ARE WILLING TO ARGUE FOR A FEW PAGES ON IT, YOU PROBABLY KNOW HOW TO DEBATE PROPERLY SO WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE?"

Or you don't know how to debate properly, either way..

 

[XienZo]

w/e, Yuna knows perfectly well how to debate so he should be more useful in the MK threads.

 

[Yuna]

Because you haven't refuted it yet, even once in this thread.

The best you've mustered against it is that because it's not "required" it's not "important". That's hardly conclusive evidence that counterpicking isn't a key aspect in Brawl's competitive culture in our region (I wish I could quit saying that but as soon as I do I just know you'll bring up Japan again -- can we pretend I always say "in our region" unless I specify otherwise?)

The argument was that it was "core". Either rewrite or remove. I'm arguing what is written by the person quoted in the Op, not how you would argue the point using your words. If I were, I would be addressing your words.

Also, how is it important if it's not required and we do it strictly out of choice?

Your "The matchups are pretty even among the top tiers" falls when you look at stage counterpicking in addition to character counterpicking. Yeah, it would be accurate if we were stuck on only the neutral stages -- but that's not how we do counterpicks.

Yes, obviously match-ups are written with absolutely no regard to counter-pick stages. Obviously no one cares if certain characters can be counter-picked into infinity through stage counter-picking!

What makes you think that's not calculated into things when writing up match-ups?

Everything else is just trying to draw parallels that don't exist so directly. Japan, other fighting games, and Melee are unrelated to whether counterpicking in Brawl has a significant impact on tournaments.

No they're not. Melee is important because it's pretty much the same as in Brawl. There were plenty of counter-pick stages for those 6:4s. Other games are important in the context because there are characters without counter-picks that aren't banned. Japan is important to show that the metagame didn't collapse or stagnate just because Japan chooses not to counter-pick, thus implying that counter-picking isn't required or very important.

The point here is that Meta Knight needs to be banned because he lacks counter-picks. I'm trying to prove that, really, counter-picking, not as important as some people think it is and that the fact that Meta Knight lacks them, not a good enough reason to ban him.

I brought up tournament results where people have multiple characters (Sometimes three, and not just Azen) listed as ones they played seriously during the tournament. I brought up how frequently these listings show up.

Can I bring up the bazillion tourneys where people use only 1 character (who is not Meta) and still place Top 8? And again, not proof.

Tournament results are dependent of individual skill, human mistakes and trivialities like the weather and how well the players have slept and stuff. They are not clinical scientific results.

You have yet to explain why something that happens so commonly is not an important aspect of the game, when the rulesets for tournaments themselves have been crafted so carefully to allow that to happen reasonably (ie, getting to ban counterpick stages to ensure you're not counterpicked too badly, but only one so that you can still be counterpicked by character + stage). You now have something you may disprove if you can.

What part of "'People do it, thus it must be important' is circular reasoning" was too hard for you to understand? You cannot prove it is important by pointing out that it happens. Prove it using arguments, facts, logic and reasoning.

And *you* declared you had refuted the point. Where is your evidence of refuting it if you won't even admit there is a point? You can't argue against smoke and mirrors, and you can't have refuted a point that never existed.

I've refuted the argument as presenting in the OP (that it's at the very core of Smash (and not just Brawl, but I can refute that too)), not your revised version of the same argument.

The point still stands as debatable.

But it's not one of the most valid points, now, is it (which was my point, that it's not one of the arguments with the most substance). Read my posts once in a while. Don't dream up what I write.

Ha, well, I think Yuna is simply concerned about people reading this and having something validated that he doesn't feel deserved validation.

Exactly. Less educated people reading "This is one of the arguments with the most substance in this debate" will think that it's true and repeat that argument ad nauseum.

 

[Yuna]

But it's a fact: Irrelevent to whether Brawl is focused on counterpicking or not (And you'll have to look back to my previous post where I went into detail on why you've yet to refute that one properly) people switch to MK and drop their previous mains because they believe he can't be counterpicked.

I'm sorry, I thought I'd addressed this already. Your hallucinations of my posts are getting tiresome. It's not important if people think something if they are wrong. 29.000 people being wrong does not magically make them right or any less wrong than when they were only 100 people!

Even if everyone does drop their mains for MK not out of necessity but out of pure choice or ignorance, that doesn't mean MK should be banned.

It's amazing what appearances will do, and the general belief is that counterpicking matters and that MK provides a significant advantage in it. Is it correct? Well, obviously numbers don't make things true. But it's how reality is for Brawl.

But it's not a valid reason for banning MK.

So the reasoning itself holds true when you compare it to reality and what people actually believe, and not theory and how little it does or does not actually impact things. That's also where it matters most.

What people believe = Truth
What people believe = Reason to do as they believe

Gay rights, women rights, black rights, Indian rights, children's rights... these things did not exist once upon a time (or at least were very limited)... because people believed they shouldn't exist. Were they right then?

Says the guy with 3 "mains".

Out of choice, not out of necessity. I usually only play Zelda in tournaments, anyway. She's my best character. The others I main for MM's and friendlies. The only characters I counter-pick against are Snakes and Marths because Zelda has really, really bad match-ups against them.

Then again, Zelda is not a Top or High Tier, nor is she among those with very few bad match-ups, thus not requiring you to counter-pick another character, now is she? Neither is Toon Link. Marth's pretty much the only one that's among those coveted few and he's my least used main because I just like Zelda and Toon Link more.

If I wanted to, I could just main Marth and not have to counter-pick ever and still stand a reasonable chance of winning tournaments as long as I was the best players present.

Then again, that is all irrelevant as I have never claimed to play the game on the highest possible level. And when discussing rules and bans, that's all that matters, the highest possible level of play. Nobody cares if counter-picking is a necessity at the lower levels, what's important is whether or not it's a necessity at the expert level.

 

[salaboB]

What part of "'People do it, thus it must be important' is circular reasoning" was too hard for you to understand? You cannot prove it is important by pointing out that it happens. Prove it using arguments, facts, logic and reasoning.

You cannot prove it's not important by making ridiculous statements of opinion about what you believe. I've explained that it happens, you have yet to demonstrate why that's not significant.

Additionally, if people believe it is important and if people act on that belief at competitions it is something important to the competitive community of Brawl. It could even be considered core if people put enough weight on it. You have not demonstrated it isn't considered core by the competitive community in our region, therefore you have not demonstrated it is not a core aspect of competitive Brawl in our region (I am so tired of having to do that but if I don't you'll jump on it like you did the "Smash" thing). Do you understand, yet? I am not just talking opinions that don't change reality; when people are involved and participating in something their opinions can change what is considered important or central in that activity.

You've demonstrated it yourself, the Japanese don't have the same counterpick system we do: Their opinions have set up the focus of their competitive scene in such a way that it doesn't involve stage counterpicking. You can't say that because people do it doesn't prove anything when we're talking about an issue that is all about whether people do it or not.

I've refuted the argument as presenting in the OP (that it's at the very core of Smash (and not just Brawl, but I can refute that too)), not your revised version of the same argument.

You have not, and I've explained why at least twice now. I took it apart as a "core" thing even, you have yet to even come close on that one. And you're being utterly disingenuous to go after "Smash" as being 64, Melee, and Brawl when we are in the Brawl tactical discussion forums, in a thread discussing debating about a Brawl character, using a point made specifically about tournaments in Brawl (Because it's from threads that are, once again, about Brawl). The only case to assume it's about 64 or Melee are if the context specifically leads you to think that -- and there's nothing present that should.

But it's not one of the most valid points, now, is it (which was my point, that it's not one of the arguments with the most substance). Read my posts once in a while. Don't dream up what I write.

I'm still waiting for you to actually read what I've been saying, I've been responding to your points this entire time. And no, I haven't been trying to "win" this point -- I've just refuted everything you've said to demonstrate why it's still a valid point of debate. That is what this thread is about, more than demonstrating the point itself (Which would be about banning MK) That is why the burden of proof is on you: You're making the claim that the point is false, so you must demonstrate irrefutably why that is so.

You could just admit it's still a debatable point and we'll let this end there.

 

[Thinkaman]

As a bit of Meta-Meta-Meta-Meta Knight discussion, I think that's enough bickering. I think we all know where everyone stands on the original topic, and continuing to nit-pick the assumptions and positions of others in this topic is contrary to the point.

Yuna, if you still disagree, I'm sorry. If the Pro-Ban side switches to a new mantra, I shall remove the current listed argument from it's position in the OP.

 

[salaboB]

As a bit of Meta-Meta-Meta-Meta Knight discussion, I think that's enough bickering. I think we all know where everyone stands on the original topic, and continuing to nit-pick the assumptions and positions of others in this topic is contrary to the point.

Yuna, if you still disagree, I'm sorry. If the Pro-Ban side switches to a new mantra, I shall remove the current listed argument from it's position in the OP.

If you change the wording from "core" to "important" (Or something similar that indicates it is done in practice but isn't what Brawl is all about) and "Smash" to "Brawl" you'll pretty much remove his basis for disagreeing with it (Which is why it's still being brought up in the main threads).

 

[brinboy789]

BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD.

lol

you must enter 10 or more characters in your post

 

[Yuna]

You cannot prove it's not important by making ridiculous statements of opinion about what you believe. I've explained that it happens, you have yet to demonstrate why that's not significant.

I can explain it using the game itself, game theory and logic. You have "People do it".

Additionally, if people believe it is important and if people act on that belief at competitions it is something important to the competitive community of Brawl. It could even be considered core if people put enough weight on it. You have not demonstrated it isn't considered core by the competitive community in our region, therefore you have not demonstrated it is not a core aspect of competitive Brawl in our region (I am so tired of having to do that but if I don't you'll jump on it like you did the "Smash" thing). Do you understand, yet? I am not just talking opinions that don't change reality; when people are involved and participating in something their opinions can change what is considered important or central in that activity.

"People believe" =/= "It is so"
"It is considered" =/= "It is so"

I have never argued that the community doesn't think it is so. In fact, I state it in my first post in this thread that people believe it to be so. That doesn't make them right. Stop writing fiction with your mouth (fingers).

You've demonstrated it yourself, the Japanese don't have the same counterpick system we do: Their opinions have set up the focus of their competitive scene in such a way that it doesn't involve stage counterpicking. You can't say that because people do it doesn't prove anything when we're talking about an issue that is all about whether people do it or not.

My point is whether or not it's necessary to counter-pick to stand a reasonable chance of winning as some of the Tops and Highs of Brawl, regardless of counter-pick character(s) and stage(s).

And then I got tired of you rewriting my posts (i.e. strawmanning). I will not reply past half of your posts from now on if the 1st half is basically just a strawman of my post. Read my posts properly (both my new and old ones if you're going to be referring to old ones) before replying to them. It's common courtesy.

Yuna, if you still disagree, I'm sorry. If the Pro-Ban side switches to a new mantra, I shall remove the current listed argument from it's position in the OP.

I'm sorry, Thinkaman, but that's not the argument here.

The argument is whether or not the argument at hand is one of the arguments on the pro-ban side "with the most substance". Whether or not it's been adopted as a mantra by the pro-side is irrelevant. Whether or not they have no other mantra is likewise irrelevant.

You, yourself, claim it's one of the arguments on the pro-ban side "with the most substance". I'm arguing against this, not anything else.

 

[Thinkaman]

You, yourself, claim it's one of the arguments on the pro-ban side "with the most substance". I'm arguing against this, not anything else.

I edited that statement in the OP to sound less like a personal endorsement. Issue over.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm sorry, Thinkaman, but that's not the argument here.

The argument is whether or not the argument at hand is one of the arguments on the pro-ban side "with the most substance". Whether or not it's been adopted as a mantra by the pro-side is irrelevant. Whether or not they have no other mantra is likewise irrelevant.

You, yourself, claim it's one of the arguments on the pro-ban side "with the most substance". I'm arguing against this, not anything else.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider the pro-ban's better argument?

 

[zamz]

Additionally, if people believe it is important and if people act on that belief at competitions it is something important to the competitive community of Brawl. It could even be considered core if people put enough weight on it...Do you understand, yet? I am not just talking opinions that don't change reality; when people are involved and participating in something their opinions can change what is considered important or central in that activity.

Lmao...Tell me, salabo, does the "right" answer become more right if more people support it? No. A right answer = a right answer, regardless of a fallacy's popularity. The number of people who support a truthful statement DOES NOT have any weight on the validity of the statement. The statement is stand-alone, and independant of it's popularity.

An element of smash does not become core just becaus a lot of people believe it to be core. A core element of smash is a core element of smash, regardless of it's followers. Another way of saying this: if everyone didn't think coutnerpicking was a core element of smash, would counterpicking suddenly become "not a core element" of smash? People's opinions have no weight on the actual truth of the matter. Yuna is attempting to prove that it is not core, and you're refuting him by saying: "But many people think it is core, so HA." ...Instead of using popularity as the backbone for your arguement, actually provide evidence for why counterpicking would be a core element of smash.

I'll also point out one other thing. You say:

if people believe it is important and if people act on that belief at competitions it is something important to the competitive community of Brawl. It could even be considered core if people put enough weight on it

The masses (baning Metaknight because he apparently 'breaks the counterpicking system' which is apparently a 'core element of smash because the masses think so') need to be INFORMED, not catered to. We shouldn't cater to hitler, just because millions of Germans believed his words to be true. I'll reiterate myself: If the masses have a false impression of MK, the masses should be informed. We should not ban MK and let those ill-informed people have their way if MK doesn't deserve the ban. Truth is independant of the # of people who believe it to be true. And even if one person stands alone in the line of truth, it's his job to inform others of their blunder.

So instead of saying: Popularity makes truth (when it doesn't), actually give something other than "MK is popular" as evidence for his ban. And preferrably do so not in this thread, but instead in Yuna's inbox.

 

[Yuna]

I edited that statement in the OP to sound less like a personal endorsement. Issue over.

Then I challenge the notion that the main argument for the anti-ban side is ""Meta Knight does not directly induce any major problems to the metagame beyond his own placings". AFAIK, it is not. The main argument is still "He's not 'too good'" (or any variations of it).

Out of curiosity, what would you consider the pro-ban's better argument?

All of the pro-ban arguments are subjective. None are definite. IMO, the best thing they have is arguing that he's "Too good" and actually managing to prove it using valid evidence.

Arguing BS like "people think" or "many MKs..." is highly flawed reasoning.

To everyone: Read what I write, not what you think I've written and you'll see that most of the time, you're disagreeing with something I didn't actually say.