Talk:Katarina/@comment-25660105-20141215074307/@comment-9705522-20141223215250

Except not. I mean, I only have a single claim, everything else follows logically. So, the claim is, "kat can easily be stopped". Lets see. Her ult is a channel. She has no cc immunity. Her ult can be stopped by any kind of cc. And in order to ult she has to be close to you. Additionally, she needs to use her e to get to you. So, are you really telling me she cant be easily stopped? As for the inevitable "resets!", well, here is the thing. Until Kat gets 4 resets, if her ult was stopped early, she is not actually better than other mid lane mages. But if she gets 4 resets .... then the fight is over anyway. Meaning it has no relevance either. So, by stopping her ult, you stop Kat completely. As I said, easily verifiable. And we know that this is true, because it actually happens. A lot.

Except I did disprove all of them. I disproved her being hard to shut down (she is actually very easy to shut down, see above). I disproved her being extremely snowbally (her early game is weak, so her potential to snowball isnt that high compared to other, similiar mids). And I have disproven her not falling off lategame. Those are all your claims. And all of them wrong. On the flipside, you failed to disprove any of mine. Instead, you tried to argue with win rates. Which is absolutely incorrect and doesnt work at all. So in reality, its you who you are describing.

Argumentum ad populum, logical fallacy. Just because the majority believes X, doesnt mean X is right. Especially if the majority consists of Bronze and silver players who play, well, really bad for the most part. And even then. People are the worst type of evidence. Why do you think witnesses are not considered as important as physical evidence?

Im afraid you are the one who doesnt have any claim to stand on, resorting to misusing statistics and a logical fallacy. But I suppose its not my business.