I think this is the case where the argument repeated for a hundred times gets an appearance of legitimacy.
Really, those are terrible arguments for A2. Saying that Wuying Leipo Kick is 26.583% more effective against formations or that Xianglong Eighteen Palms are precicely enough to bring down 18 opponents (one palm for each, hurr) is just wanking to numbers on the character's sheet. The arguments in its favor should come from the update itself, especially since it was stated the clues are already there.
Choosing the opponent based on their squishiness is another thing I am uncomfortable with. 'Xuxian does not control his skill well, so it is better to assign him to an opponent who can take it?' The whole point of the trial is for Xuxian to prove that he has
full control over his skill! The Abbott does not want to paralyze him or to forgive him - he wants to ensure that Xuxian is no danger to the monastery. There is no failing 'a little'. As soon as Fangci gets even a slightest hint that Xuxian is not in control, there is no way this fight ends in anything other but failure, since the Abbott will try and press Xuxian into using his skill unwisely. Not because he is an evil monster, but because that is the meaning of the challenge.
We must either place our full trust in that Xuxian is able to control himself, as he says he does, or back off.
I guess the clues are too subtle for me to pick on them.
Esquilax did cite the update, and came with the following:
The update also seems to imply that succeeding in the trial and defeating the Abbot soundly are two different things, based on the different accounts of Huichan and the late Abbot Fangzhang.
treave, what was the difference between their performance in the trials that they faced? As I understood it, while Huichan came out victorious, he had a significantly harder time of the trial, and perhaps the Abbot of his day allowed him a victory when he showed that he was sufficiently skilled and controlled. On the other hand, Fangzhang managed to outdo his predecessor by outclassing his Abbot completely without harming him at all. Am I getting it right? If that's the case, then it implies that succeeding in the trial and beating the challenges soundly are two very different things.
The problem is, I still can't understand which choice this argument favors.
In absence of better ideas, I guess the honest thing to do would be to admit defeat and vote B. We can't win everywhere. In case it fails, I am sticking with my gut feeling.
Flopped to
B>A1.