Talk:Yasuo/@comment-26869721-20170125163931/@comment-4091261-20170216233002

You haven't said anything contradictory. Rather, we are presenting contradictions. Unevent has presented a direct contradiction to the statement, "There is no item that directly counters.

, is in fact, a direct counter to. However, given how lightly it was presented, I go as far as saying that is such a significant counter that it makes  as managable as. It is impossible to have my statement that is overbearingly effective, and your belief that  is not making a difference. These beliefs are in direct conflict with each other, and thus they cause a contradiction regardless if either is true or false.

Also the general statement that is overpowered--as you have stated that he is overloaded, therefore overpowered--if I come along and say that he is underpowered. The domains of these statements only converge at one spot: powered. Which should be obvious given that is a tool that gets work done in a set interval of time. However, given the domain is reduced to such a state, it is impossible to justify a bias given the presence of each side.

Thus this means while both arguments stand valid, all points regarding him being too much or too little is rendered obselete. Your observations are obselete. My complaints are obselete. In the end the only thing that can truly be said is that is powered. How high or how low? The measurement is itself a contradiction, he is simply powered. Your observations stating that you are obviously seeing him giving toxic vibes due to his strength can be just as easily countered like my statement that absolutely every champion in the game renders to a pitiful weakling.

In regards to the popularity of in comparison to. Your question runs under the assumption that for all champions in the game, if champion is underpowered then the champion not have any complaints or reasons to be banned attatched to them. This assumption is false and it is disproved by the existance of, who is amongst the lowest performing champions in the game and has a ban rate much higher than.

You create two premises but you have no link, has a low play rate. has a high play rate. play rate is less than. You have not reached your conclusion. Unless you are representing the condition that play rate must be similar to  in order for both to be both easily suppressed and compared. In which case I dub this a contradiction with the counterexample of and  in the jungle who are both easily compared and easily supressed, yet have largely different playrates.

As for the opinion that should not be a buggering pest to normal players when he is not performing well, I present a new argument:
 * 1) is a buggering pest to normal players.  has the second highest banrate in all servers and the absolute highest ban rate at platinum ranks and above.
 * 2) Platinum ranked players and above are not potatoes when the population is compared on average to lower than platinum players.
 * 3) Thus players that are not potatoes are banning more than potato players.
 * 4) If a champion is not performing well and is banned a lot, then that champion is a buggering pest.
 * 5) is amongst the lowest performing champions in the game.
 * 6) is amongst the lowest performing champions in the game and is banned a lot by players who are not potatoes.
 * 7) is a buggering pest for players who are not potatoes.
 * 8) If a player is a potato, then the player is not normal.
 * 9) is a buggering pest for normal players.

I disprove the argument that for all champions, a champion should not be a buggering pest to normal players when the champion is not performing well with the existence of, a champion who is both a buggering pest and is not performing well.

As such, your points are nullified by my points that are nullified by you. I have no qualms about what you've experienced, because what you have experienced is null while all of your arguments, my arguments, and the contributor's arguments stand valid.