Maybe if I spell it out slowly you'll understand.
You complain a lot about "ki whores."
This is because sometimes they beat you. :O (I mean, let's face it, why else would you complain?)
Oh, right, because it's cheap.
So people beat you with it when they haven't been playing as long as you, and that's what you complain about. You call that cheap.
Something which is easier than what you do is cheap.
I put it to you, that if you play with one hand, then people that play with two hands will be cheap.
Let me try and make it simpler still.
Definitions:
head-on variety...is indeed a cheap and noobish tactic
Two-handed player: Someone who plays with two hands.
One-handed player: Someone who plays with one hand.
We already know this implication statement is true.
If someone is a "HOW", then they are cheap.
From this implication statement, we can derive that:
Something that can beat you and can be done by someone who is new = Cheap.
Let's try and prove another implication statement.
To prove an implication statement is true (but not vacuously true) you need to prove that, in the format "If A, Then B", A and B are both true statements.
If "you play with two hands", then "It is cheap."
The first one is true if you play with two hands. Simple enough.
The second statement is true only if, using our definition from above
"playing with two hands" is or equals "Something that can beat you and can be done by someone who is new"
Playing with two hands is something that can be done by someone new.
Playing with two hands will not always beat you however.
But, if you use one hand yourself, then playing with two hands will beat you. Thus, under these conditions, playing with two hands is, by definition, cheap.
Therefore, we can derive from this, that
If "You play with one hand", then "Playing with two hands is cheap."
Now I'm off to class.
