"(Shifting the) Burden of Proof" Fallacy: I need not prove my claim true, you must prove it false.
I'm not siding with anyone regarding what content should, or shouldn't be included into SC6, or who matters more, or who represents the community more, or whatever (casual vs. competitive). But Nyte, from an argumentative stance, in order to make a valid point or a valid claim (logically), you have to have either proof, or logic to back it up.
I.E. "they don't even make up 1% of people who buy these games"
In order to accurately prove this statement, you would need to know
A. How many individual people purchased the game.
B1. What is considered casual, and what is considered competitive.
B2. How many competitive people there are.
C. Simple division.
Problems arise when trying to prove this claim when you consider that many people have purchased the game more than once, which people to include (do you include the people who have only played 1.5 hours of the game?), etc.
While I understand the reasoning behind your statement, the most that you have made of it (thus far) is an educated guess. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is only when you begin to make statements with statistics that don't come from a legitimate source that people begin to attack you.
Referring back to the original line, the reason this (Burden of Proof Fallacy), is not an argumentative tool is because then people can make any claim that they want and it could be considered true.
I.E. There is an omniscient being that we can't physically detect or consciously perceive somewhere out there .........
