Because you seem to have a hard-on for logic, i’ll just say…
"She’s more impactful with three turrets than with six, because the turrets do more damage." -
“This argument is fallacious because it assumes that the only way to contribute to a fight is through direct damage, not via strategic manipulation of the situation”
False. Saying something is “more impactful” doesn’t imply that this is the only element at play.
"You actually have to be more strategic now, not less, because she has fewer turrets."
“With this definition, reducing Reinhardt’s shield health to 500 would make him more “strategic” because he now can only block critical shots on reaction or on a read, rather than using his ample barrier to create situations that your team can benefit from. You can see how this doesn’t actually promote strategic play.”
False analogy. The turrets, while half the number, are far stronger. The impression i’ve had is that the damage at play will be around the same. Considering this, it is like Rein having two shields, both half the size he presently has, each independently positionable, vs his present single shield. As the two could do just the same job as the one, but also could do more, like block a side and a front attack simultaneously, the level of strategic potential increases exponentially with how many times you divide the shield. Likewise the turrets.
"There are plenty of other characters disabled players can use."
“This argument is fallacious because it assumes incorrectly (a) that other characters are as accessible as Symmetra”
False. It doesn’t assume they’re “as accessible”, it only assumes that they’re accessible to disabled players. Like the first point, this is you exchanging analog for digital. Someone is talking of degrees, while you are talking about on/off. (or vice versa).
“it also, incredibly, makes normative statements about the experiences of the disabled players of this game. Think about how insane that is, to tell another person what is or isn’t accessible for them.”
You’ve done precisely this. You declared her accessible, without consideration for anyone’s specific disability. You didn’t define ‘disability’. Is she accessible to people with no arms? No, so when you’ve declared “Symmetra… …is accessible”, you’ve made " normative statements about the experiences of the disabled players of this game. "
"It’s more important that Symmetra be viable/meta/not niche." -
“This argument is fallacious because it assumes that Symmetra’s “viability” (how? at what level of play? to what group of players?) is more important than her accessibility”
Something is only fallacious when it is logically flawed. The statement might not be logically flawed. You’ve not argued that it is. You claim accessibility matters, but you’ve not shown that it matters more than viability. You can’t scream fallacy because you can’t show it.
"Symmetra is no-skill, these changes just make it so that you have to have skill to play her."
“…fallacious because… Overwatch was presented as a game where that wasn’t the only way to contribute”
The fallacy is yours. You are equivocating skill with contribution.
"The only reason you like this character is because she doesn’t take aim to be good with." Yup, that is about the size of it."
“Yup, that is about the size of it… …This argument is fallacious because it assumes, again, that only mechanical aiming skill matters in judging a character’s contributions to a match.”
It isn’t fallacious. You’ve agreed with it. What is implied is a bias towards skill vs no skill in their enjoyment of a game, or the assumption that you have the contradictory bias. There is no reason at all to think they are blind to the effectiveness of a character (“contributions”).
"Maybe you should try another game if you can’t handle Overwatch."
“This argument is fallacious because it sets as normative the speaker’s preferences for the game, without considering whether accessibility matters (Premise 5) or whether other players’ experiences matter as well.”
Bias =/= fallacious. It’s a mere suggestion and you’ve no idea what else they’ve considered.
"Just adapt and move on."
" This comment is fallacious…"
Just stop. Using this word is adding nothing to your arguments. If you don’t think you can adapt, say you don’t think you can adapt, or not everyone can adapt. Drop this pretense, it makes you sound like an edgy 13 year old.