https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
As someone else stated, you already lost this one, buddy. It’s OK, one day you’ll understand how to fight against disadvantaged players. You just gotta keep practicing!
Ok lets see what statements I made with the reasoning I used to back up my claims:
“Sorry but immunity to all soft CC, 6-8 consecutive dodges and the ability to double teleport 1800 range away (not including shadowstep for another 1200) with one of the lowest cool down stunbreak+block in the game while also having enough stealth to ensure you won’t be seen for enough time that you cannot be tracked.
I mean sure it’s more risky than say wanderer druid but in terms of risk for reward its way more rewarding than risky."
“The rest of the dislike comes from how apart from shadowstep thieves have very low cool downs on thier skills. Adding on the ability to be immune to all soft CC and get away from absolutely everything except another thief or druid longbow if they start rapid fire at close range as they try to run. It’s like a lot of other HoT specs there’s very little risk and a lot of reward vs anything that has moderate to high risk.”
I have given reasons as to why thief is low risk backed up by factual aspects to back up my claim, you can look up the skills in game or the wiki, you however have only given biased passive aggressive opinionated responses.
You then decided to make this lovely claim:
“If you’re dying to a Thief in WvW 1v1, and you believe yourself a skilled player, then your build and/or gear is not suited for 1v1. The only thing that a thief currently is suited to kill 1v1 on equal footing (both gear and 1v1 built), is another thief.”
Sindrener winning 1v1s
Aurora Legend showing thief can not only win 1v1 but outnumbered.
Touch of Shadow with various group and solo fights.
So here’s some proof countering your claim that thief cannot win a 1v1.
Now, I don’t visit hipster passive aggressive websites but I do access Wikipedia and here’s something about burden of proof and logical fallacies:
“When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”
Except no status quo has been set and going through the thread you find.
Apolo, Zenith, OriOri, Chorazin, Gebrechen, Spartacus, Kirochique, JimmydT, Coro, Clownmug, Zinkz, BeepBoopBop, Choppy all seem to think thief is strong or at least not as weak as you do, that’s 13.
Babazhook, JonnyForgotten, Fat Disgrace, KrHome, Blaquefyre, Straegen, Ich, Siphon, Bartsimpsons, Coronit think thief is not OP and thus agree with you, that’s 10.
So going by this thread alone the status quo is siding more to thief certainly not being weak and that’s without mentioning people like DeceiverX who think aspects need toning down with thief but only in tandem with other classes, I haven’t included those people as they have points for both sides of the argument.
“One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.”
The fact is your position is a logical fallacy as well because you have neither backed up your claims with any reasoning at all outside of l2p nor are you arguing from a generally accepted position of fact. You certainly are not in the status quo as more people in this thread think thief can 1v1.