Goldlizard vs Mushroom_Natural - Tad Judgement

###Mushroom Intro:

* Link can slow down time after dodging in melee to rapidly counterattack.

* Can fully heal from death once.

* Has 3 guaranteed block forcefields.

* Can fly by generating an updraft up to 3 times.

* Can also slow time by using his bow midair.

* Infinite creates damaging illusions that can hurt you for real. The pulse that activates these illusions is unavoidable. He has a great deal of versatility with illusions up to creating an illusion of the sun to attack opponents.

* Infinite can summon ancient arrows for Link which OHK enemies, and summon terrain for Link to jump off of to activate his bow & arrow slow time.

* However, Mushroom won't argue this strategy unless Goldlizard thinks it's fair.

This is like, sporting of you, but it'd probably better to be consistent about what you're claiming your team will do. Since you don't have direct control over how your characters will engage in this fight, it's a good idea to outline *how* they fight and use that to inform a consistent analysis of their strategy rather than arbitrarily saying they will or won't do something depending on your external mood.

**Tad Feedback:**

So there's a nugget of synergy in here, I like that, and you do lay out all of your characters' abilities, which is good. However, the standard of evidence in the GDT means that for every claim you make, including that your characters possess these abilities at all, you need to link evidence from their source media.

For example, rather than simply telling us that Link can slow down time, you would be expected to link a gif of Link doing what you said. Ex:

* [Link's perception of time slows while aiming his bow and arrow](https://v.redd.it/a12oo9keahkb1)

Now we judges can see that not only is this a valid claim, but also just *how* fast Link is able to act. Drawing attention to the specifics of your feat would make it even stronger. Ex: pointing out that Link is able to aim and fire and the span of single digit milliseconds per the timer in this gif.

Aside from linking evidence, which is the bread and butter of these tourneys, I think you would also benefit firstly from a longer and more in-depth posts, and secondly better organisation.

As an example, look how Elick segments out his intro by the different stats of his characters:

https://www.reddit.com/r/whowouldwin/comments/1dsjfpx/adequate_argument_contest_3_round_1b/lb7cka6/

This is a really good way to cohesively introduce your characters and what they can do in a well cited, easy to read format.

####Goldlizard 1:

* Opponent's physical advantage matters less than scouting ability on large maps.

* Skitter is really good at recon thanks to bugs that let her sweet the area, and Mizu has ninja skills.

* Skitter's bug swarm also blocks visibility of her team. Creates diversionary bug dummies and blocks sightlines.

* Link's revival would prevent OHKO by the nanothorn, but Infinite has no defence. Skitter will hand Mizu the knife to deal a oneshot sneak attack aided by using her bugs as cover.

* Link doesn't have AOE attacks that could meaningfully cut down the bug swarm. The bugs would wear him down for Mizu to finish off.

**Tad Feedback:**

I like the logical presentation of tactics and consideration of logistics that would enable an effective sneak attack, but I'll repeat what I said to Mushroom which is that for every claim you make, you need to link evidence it is true.

If you want me, the judge, to believe that Skitter is good at scouting link examples of her scouting really well, and highlight what aspects of those feats make them good. Can Skitter use her bugs to scan a 100 km radius for a specific person in under 10 minutes?

The same applies to Mizu. You want me to believe she's a good stealthy infiltrator, show me her being stealthy!

You also need to cite the specific tactics you claim your team will use. If Skitter regularly makes bug outlines to distract opponents, show me her doing that effectively in a fight. If Skitter would be willing to hand off the Nanothorn to her ally to make better use of it, link evidence that's in character for her to do.

I'd also pay particular attention to defining in-universe terminology judges might not be familiar with---what is a nanothorn knife? Why would it be able to OHK the enemy?

####Mushroom 1:

* Link has fast reflexes so he could block attacks with his shield or forcefield.

* Link also has the ability to generate electrical shocks.

* Infinite can teleport away from attacks. Has fast enough reactions to dodge a hit from Sonic.

How fast is Sonic?

* They would most likely conclude that their opponents would go for a stealthy approach and cover each others' blind spots.

Why would they think this?

* Gold's team would lose if the sneak attack failed.

This is a cogent point that Gold's putting all his eggs in the one basket of a successful ambush, but you need to tell me *why* the ambush would be less likely to work than to fail.

**Tad Feedback:**

I would focus on responding more to your opponents' individual points.

It's one thing to tell me the sneak attack won't work, but you need to specify *why*---what about your characters will foil the sneak attack? Why aren't their characters good enough to ambush yours?

Bringing up the lightning out of nowhere is also a little weird. Why not specify the lightning *is* an AOE attack, thereby refuting your opponent's point that link doesn't have a way to deal with bugs?

####Gold 2:

* My characters are inferior

You don't gotta do this man your opponent hasn't posted any stats, so nobody's inferior to anybody else without evidence.

* Mizu is not extremely useful to the team here

Again like, don't undercut yourself

* Skitter has a range of 5 blocks and can use her bugs to sense details in darkness.

* Skitter uses her bugs to conceal her movements and perform feints by misleading the opponents' eyes

* Mizu is skilled enough to cut a bird out of the air. The Nanothorn cuts the molecular bonds between atoms, turns steel mannequins to dust.

Good! Cited feats are doing your arguments a lot greater credit.

However, next time it'd be a good idea to explain what the feats are proving rather than just dropping them into your paragraph.

Instead of just saying "Lands one hit" with the bird link, specify what you're showing---that Mizu is fast and skilled enough to tag fast small flying targets, and would therefore have no trouble tagging the enemy team.

* Mizu can fight through being struck by an arrow. Wouldn't go down to Link in one hit.

* Skitter will swarm Link with biting insects, and his speed isn't enough to avoid an AOE blanket of bugs. He only has 3 lightning strikes and that's not enough to clear the swarm.

* Mizu is a skilled duelist and could overcome Link.

* Skitter's bugs could outright suffocate the enemy to death by clogging airways.

**Mushroom 2:**

* Urbosa's Fury is an AOE attack.

Good!

* Link also has bombs that could kill the bugs.

* Nanothorn is weak to strong energy sources, and Infinite's ruby is a strong energy source.

Good, specific picking apart of undisclosed weaknesses is a great start. However, you'd need a lot more citation than just "the wiki said" to evidence the interaction you're claiming between the nanothorn and Infinite.

What exactly do strong energy sources do to it? Why are the energy sources that weaken it similar to the phantom ruby?

* Link + Infinite are intelligence.

Citation?

* Mush's team would stick together, or else use portals to hide Link so that he can't be targetted by the enemy.

Which is it? If you claim two conflicting strategies, it makes it seem as though your team will be uncertain or confused about how to proceed.

* Link might not agree to it but he probably would

You're kind of undermining yourself even further by describing how your team will be dysfunctional and disagree with each other in character.

* Infinite could create an illusion of Link and counter-ambush when the opponents fell for the bait

You just said that Link was brave, and now you're arguing he would agree to cowardly sneak attack strategies? You need to take into account consistency in how you characterise your dudes.

* A sneak attack would require link and infinite to split up and not be covering each others' blind spots

This is I think a logically sound argument, but I'd need to see more linked evidence contrasting your picks' counter-stealth abilities with the opponent's stealth to make a call.

As it is, with no evidence, I can't really say anything regarding the claims you're making.


####Results:

**Goldlizard Wins**

Goldlizard ultimately provided more evidence for his pick's abilities, cities the nanothorn's ability to cut through atoms, Skitter's large range with her bugs and propensity to use them for trickery, and Mizu's skill as a duelist and ability to stay up after taking arrow wounds.

I'd be happy to discuss evidence & formatting standards for this style of debate with either of you guys if you'd like.