My comments are under your points.
Yo that's super annoying. Could you not do that? No offence, but now I have to like, copy/paste each one instead of just copy/pasting the quote code.
-Skill. Normally you'll be able to avoid it, but every once in a while you'll screw up and get caught. In a 3 stock match, you can still come back from that, but in a 1 stock match, it's a different story.
In a 3 stock match, the stock difference is going to contribute a LOT to the other player winning the game, in fact, it's garaunteed to be at least 33% on paper, not including momentum/feeling shifts, or free damage he gets for having an extra stock.
In a one stock match, momentum is forcably stopped (stop in gameplay) and he wont get any free damage on you, at all.
-Don't get what you're saying here.
Once he kills you, the situation restarts in both 1 stock and 3 stock. Except in 1 stock, the kill is documented and the killer has no advantage.
-The player who lands the killing blow wins. Whats wrong with that. Plus, I'd say 1 stock matches are a worse test of skill. Random hax like tripping and just general mistakes become much more costly. That's not skill, is it?
First things first, general mistakes are a direct, probably the most direct, way to test skill. The more of these you make, the less you deserve to win, because your making general mistakes. It should also be noted that tripping will RARELY decide a match. However, if it would the game is much more consistent in allowing you to get back that game and still win, whereas in 3 stock your opponent just won 50% of the match.
Also, whoever lands the killing blow 3 times wins in 3 stock.
-You can't just dodge the opponent and "make the game unplayable". That's against the rules. So that shouldn't be a problem.
If this was actually true, Will vs Rich Brown would've never happened.
The game becomes a higher risk, higher reward situation. Better players are rewarded more, and less experienced players are punished a bit more*. If tripping becomes a problem, people will learn to avoid dashing as much, use the C-stick more, and be more careful about grabs.
This is actually wrong. The game just becomes more consistent overall. Noone is punished, unless you count losing more definably punishment.
According to the ruleset, there is nothing wrong with avoiding conflict with another player as long as it does not violate the LGL/IDC/going-somewhere-another-player-cant-reach rules. It's still here. In 3 stock, if a player manages a stock lead, they can proceed to camping/avoiding conflict. In 1 stock where timeouts are percent lead driven, the opponent might only have to land a single weak hit to end the camping and bring the game back to offensive play. Even if someone find a perfect situation where they can bypass the rules to not get hit, they only get 25% of their victory instead of 50% due to a "stupid" tactic.
Note, it's actually illegitmate. It's what's called a secondary win condition, and it only exists because it has too.
Illegitimate as in essentially unearned, most of the time. Not as in doesn't count. If we could ban it for good we would, but there's no way to draw a line that makes sense in all situations, so we work with what we've got.