OK, so the fact that you played quote soup instead of taking in the entire point tells me you don't see the forest for the trees. You don't see the big picture, just small instances. I don't have the time to go over each thing, so I want to address the things I think are the most relevant.
- The issue with Snake is that Konami, and not Nintendo or the other comapnies Nintendo contracted with for this game. See here
- You said "Well if Toad is so special, why did Rosalina and Jr. beat him out? Why couldn't E.Gadd do the same?" This is a reverse slippery slope. You and I both know Rosalina, Bowser Jr, and Toad are far more prominent characters.
- I'm not insulting you and I'm not sure how you could infer my statement as such. The statement is simply the crux of my argument, my assessment. Your points will always be challenged in any discussion. My advise: grow a thicker skin.
- Not sure if sarcastic, but "Seeing the forest for the trees," means you don't see the big picture.
- The ballot being open to any character does not mean they'll add any character. The absents of evidence is not the evidence of absents. See above for reasons why they won't add other third party characters (at least those outside of Namco, Capcom and Sega).
The fact that you used red text to respond to the point tells me you don't have a reason for arguing outside of trying to disprove my specific point. Let's say you totally debunked my points. What did you accomplish? What case are you trying to build. Without on, all your doing is saying specific things are incorrect, not the premise. In the end, you get nowhere. The reason I posted those two things is because you should have argued those providing an anti-thesis. You could have brought up new points like I did, but because you have no reason, all you can do is try to break down my assessment for my support. Again, the reason you attack my point is so that you can build up yours, but without one, you go nowhere.
Why would I reply to several points in a single paragraph? I chose that format. Doesn't mean anything aside from me picking that format. It's not like you only made one point in your response.
My point still stands. Sure, we can argue that Toad would be added over E.Gadd, but that was the literal same exact thing everybody said before Smash 4 came out. Nobody expected Jr., Rosalina or even Doc to get in before Toad, yet they did. With that in mind, how can we so easily say E.Gadd is an obvious passover? Is he the same level as the others? No. Does that mean he's got no chance and wouldn't be picked over Toad? Not necessarily.
My skin is plenty thick. Maybe I took it the wrong way. However with this reply, i'm sensing a wee bit of hostility. But whatever, it's irrelevant. Yes, it was sarcastic.
That last part...I don't quite understand. There is literally nothing saying another 3rd party wouldn't be added. Sakurai got Snake already in Brawl. He's not going to be against getting another one for some mysterious reason. If there's reward in adding a character, I would think he'd do it. It doesn't mean Shrek or Goku would happen, but I don't think Snake or Rayman are out of the question as far as 3rd parties are concerned.
In general, we debate and discuss to rival or comment on the other person's idea. We disagree and we share our thoughts. In your assessment of me "breaking down" your post, I did that because I DO think there are holes. I replied with points in regards to your last post, and you didn't respond to them. I still disagree that Riki:Shulk is a bad comparison to E.Gadd:Toad for a number of reasons. I still think there are some contradictions in your post.
My original point on top of all of this, was that gameplay is important (never said others weren't important btw) and it SHOULD be the most important to people. Gameplay is what makes this game fun to play and talk about at the end of the day, right? Most of what else everybody brings up is a bunch of crap that they only care about because of their own character. To me, that's boring. According to quite a few people, that's boring.
I don't care what games Toad has been in. I know he's a reoccurring Mario character. Frankly, I don't care what games E.Gadd has been in. I just want to know what they can do. If we're going to refer to general powerups as part of Toad's repertoire...that sounds boring. Almost like the ideas people have for Jumpman. Captain Toad might be a cool idea too, and that doesn't mean E.Gadd is a bad one. I just happen to like the idea of E.Gadd better than Toad on a gameplay train of thought.
I would dare say that this debate is over, mainly because you've disregarded my point as in essence, "not having one". That's fine. That's a shame though. I would never take a point and say it has no merit. I think about what makes somebody think something and then understand said point. The points that I countered in your post were ones that I flat out think aren't good ones. But that's all a part of what a debate is in general.
.