I asked "Do you deny Ghirahim has a large fan base and following?" becausee I was going to follow up with me providing my opinion on Ghirahim's chances vs. Ganondorf's that was relevant.
You should have done the opinion
right off the bat instead of asking an irrelevant question with the intention to
turn it relevant later.
It may have been an opinion backed by faulty logic, but at least it would have been relevant to the concept of Ganondorf vs. Ghirahim.
Quite simply...
Ghirahim's chances IS RELEVANT TO his relevance BECAUSE his relevance affects his chances in mine and quite a lot of other's opinions.
I was saying only one would make it, and I gave my precentages. I said there would be a 40% chance of Ghirahim. So, I was talking about his chances as a whole, because I believe they directly vary with Ganondorf, because I think only one will make it.
You keep saying that word, and yet you don't know how to use it right....
Regardless of your little percentage ordeal, you used it in the context of Ganondorf vs. Ghirahim, which is the context I've been using the entire time. I wasn't arguing Ghirahim's chances; I was arguing the written thought that Ganondorf could potentially be replaced by Ghirahim.
You can yell and scream reasons why Ghirahim could be a newcomer until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change that the concept that he could take Ganondorf's place makes no logical sense, the main point (and only point) I was making that you kept failing to address.
The only arguments you kept providing me was that it makes sense for Ghirahim to be in Smash,
not that it makes sense for the most important Zelda villain to be
replaced with a relatively minor one.
I've already addressed that Ghirahim
could be in Smash with saying that the situation between the two has but two options; both of them or solely Ganondorf.
In the context, yes, that is what RELEVANCE means. When you were reiterating Wikipedia, you convienantly left out something. It said....
Ghirahim IS current.
I left it out because it was irrelevant to the subject at hand, and honestly, it doesn't help your case any better.
Last I checked, "current" didn't mean "about 3 years ago".
Since Skyward Sword, we've had Wind Waker HD, Link Between Worlds, and are soon to have Hyrule Warriors and the Wii U Zelda title that's in development.
Those are more "current" than Ghirahim is, rendering that point null and void.
Aside from that, you have absolutely
no grasp at what relevance is and keep using it as "recency", which is NOT relevance.
Relevance is:
-Relation to the subject at hand.
-Applicability to social issues.
-The capability of a search engine or function to retrieve material that satisfies the need of the user.
None of which fall under "he shows up in a recent game from 2011".
EDIT: Now, instead of arguing over whether or not you were making irrelevant points, how about addressing the true argument about how it makes any sense for Ganondorf to be replaced by Ghirahim?