1. "Getting the most out of Shields is not about stacking EHP but about regenerating quickly."
-Problem: This also requires more modules and more SP than Armor. The argument is about making Shields work as effectively as Armor, though not the same way. To make Shields work as well as armor, it requires more SP and module slots. This is not a benefit of Shields but a detriment.

2. "You should be fighting at range and thereby minimize your damage taken."
- Problem: This is entirely based on the weapon. An Amarr Assault with a Scrambler Rifle has about the same range as a Caldari Assault with a Rail Rifle. The Amarr is capable of operating at range as well as also having more EHP for the close range fight. Equating Shields with Range is inaccurate as it is based solely on the weapon and not the suit. Stating "we just need more maps that favor Shields" is, again, favoring only the weapon that the Caldari use and not the Shields themselves.

3. "Shields are great if you can flank the enemy."
- Problem: This is a level of play style that is not necessary for the Armor user. Instead of thinking it as "The Armor user charges while the Shield user flanks", it comes off as "The Armor user can charge or flank while the Shield user must flank." Adding an additional requirement in order for something to be on par with another option is a passable definition of underpowered. Would be like saying "A knife is more powerful than a gun if the knife is already in your throat"; it is true but it doesn't mean anything in regards to the actual power difference of a gun or a knife when the situation is already assumed to happen.

1. It is a slippery slope to state that it isn't a negative that it requires more SP because "I put X amount of SP into Y thing therefore I'm entitled to Z." I was merely showing that, yes, it does require more SP. This is a negative of Shields. It would be like Ferroscale being a third skill called "Plate Adjustment." I was also not stating that Shields must be better because it requires more skills. I am, however, saying that it requiring more Skills to be on par with Armor is a negative to Shields. Stating "dedication to a certain playstyle is the choice of the user, therefore there so no good reason to give them anything" is no different than saying "(Underpowered thing) doesn't need to get buffed because it is the choice of the user to go down that route." Again, the primary reason was just "why does it take more SP to do the same thing?" rather than "it should do more because it takes more SP."

2. An Armor user playing "less aggressively" does not get a negative to not playing "aggressively" in the same way that a Shield user does. This is very similar to Argument 3; "just don't play Aggressive." An Armor user is more than capable as doing just as well as a Shield user by "playing less aggressively" as a Shield user.

3. Just here as a placeholder to keep in line with your 1-4 for ease of reading.

4. "Armor users get the option to Shield tank effectively. This should not be overlooked when talking about balance." This is similar to stating "X weapon is not overpowered because anyone can use X weapon." Even if that is a bit of an oversimplification, the fact is that the street goes both ways so it isn't a specific bonus to Shields.

The purpose was to show flaws that I have seen come up over and over in arguments against the basis of "Armor is superior to Shields." No disrespect was meant and, hopefully, none taken.