Most of the banned stages are banned for one of 3 reasons:
1. Stalling Tactics (Stalling is banned, even Temple might be considerable as circle camping is stalling; however, Temple probably has more problems than just circle camping.) As far as I know, nobody even tried to ban circle-camping. There has to be a way. Circle camping is stalling. Rising Pound was successfully banned in case of being used to stall.
2. Random factors (So-called "randomness" exists with character's moves ANYWHERE, Peach's Turnips, Game and Watch's Side-B. Those examples are more extreme than Big Blue's randomness) No tournament data ever proved whether this was worse than the random stage that used to be used or the randomness of certain attacks. Why? Because these stages were banned immediately.
3. Certain Top Tiers supposedly being unbeatable, but in many cases this is worse on final destination. Much of the time, this is due to a single tactic such as shine-infinites.
4. Slower characters being "screwed". Again, Bowser, Zelda, Mewtwo, Ganondorf all do better on many of these stages than on final destination. Icicle Mountain is a GREAT Bowser stage, but a terrible Zelda stage. That being said, final destination is still worse. Big Blue is an ok Ganondorf stage, and one of Bowser's best stages, as well as one of Mewtwo's best, and a pretty good Zelda stage. I can't speak for Roy, I never really use him. I can kind of speak for Ganondorf, but I think that I can definitely speak for Bowser, Mewtwo and Zelda.
5. Infinite combos or Walk-off kills. In Melee, there isn't the problem that many of these infinites are standing infinites on any stage anyway, so the argument against banning the stage in favor of the tactic is not quite as valid. But since when are infinites non-banworthy to the point that stages should be banned because of them? The main argument against walls and walk-offs has been Shine-Infinites the whole time, but why not just ban shine-infinites? Fox has pretty much been destroying everyone with his shine-infinites, right? What if his shine-infinite has reached the point where it warrants banning?
Why has banning stages always been the answer? I may HATE final destination, as it renders Bowser practically unplayable, but that does not necessarily mean ban it. Though its being a starter is questionable in my opinion (yes, I once did advocate its banning in Brawl, and I was no less for it in Melee, but I have realized that while Bowser may never beat Falco here, this is the main mentality that has banned more than half the stages in the game. And players get to declare one ban right, mine definitely goes on final destination.
The most questionable thing is that with all of these stages being banned to "protect low tiers", then why is it that nothing ever happened to final destination. The answer is that most people liked that stage and were accustomed to it. The reason that Smash Bros (all 3 of them) is my favorite series is because of the stage variance, platform layouts, hazards, and movements that force players to adapt. Smash Bros (all 3) has always been intended to be played with platforms. final destination was not even playable in multiplayer in SSB64.
Personally, if I want to play a fighting game with zero platforms, I will stick with Guilty Gear XX. SSB64, SSBM, and SSBB have always been about fighting the enemy making use of the platforms and adapting to different layouts. There is a reason why the name Super Smash Bros is derived from the name Super Mario Bros.
